58% of Americans want a "truly competitive" third political party.

[calteacherguy]

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of American adults say it would be good for the United States to have a truly competitive third political party. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 23% disagree while 19% are not sure. Responses vary significantly by age—65% of those under 40 believe a third party would be good for the nation. Just 43% of those over 65 agree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/58_say_competitive_third_party_good_for_usa

[Moloch]

1. I'm all for that-----

as long as the third party is the Libertarians or the Constitution party or some other drivel.

[Eurobabe]

2. If the two party system is so great, then why are there so many

parliamentary democracies, especially like those that the US supposedly helped to set up after the WWII? I am learning about Germany's govt. right now, and to me, this is head and shoulders above a Democratic Republic.

JMHO.

[Zorro]

23. Yes the Italian political system is great

They have like, what, 200 political parties or something?

[Eurobabe]

28. I don't know I live in Germany, we have over 60 parties

I am told, but 6 or 7 basically run the show.

[dsa]

3. more options would be nice

actually there's lots of options now, but we need more realistic ones. none of the today's minor parties have any hope of winning.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. I know! The federalist theocracy party. oops. already have that. the republicans

[Selatius]

5. You would need a constitutional amendment to do this, which would take a lifetime.

If you want a third party, you need a constitutional amendment that stipulates that each state allot its seats in the US House based upon the percentage each party won.

For instance, if a state has 10 seats in the House, then the 10 congressional districts that currently exist would be rolled into one unified district, but unlike the old system, this unified district will be represented not by one person but by 10.

...So that means if a political party wants to win just one seat in the US House in this particular state, it must garner 10% of the votes cast to get one seat.

This opens the door to viable third parties because this system dodges Duverger's Law, which says that single-member district plurality representation is biased in favor of only two political parties becoming viable.

Also, it ends the disgusting legacy of gerrymandering in this country.

See more about Duverger's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Unfortunately, the constitutional amendment route runs into the problem of trying to convince the existing political parties in power to, in essence, vote to give up power by signing on to such an amendment. In my study of history, political establishments do not give up power willingly. They are taken away instead, in this case by the people, violently or peacefully.

[The Magistrate]

7. Exactly, Sir

The two party system we have is the natural consequence of other rules defining our political processes, when it is played by people with an eye towards actually taking power. Persons in this country expressing desire for a third party generally are actually expressing a desire for one party to disappear and be replaced by something else, or else confessing they do not think much about politics at all, and understand them even less. Multi-party systems can thrive only under a party list system of some form; these actually encourage the proliferation of parties in the same was a first past the post system produces two contenders only.

[Solon]

12. You are both wrong!!!!

Godsdammit, doesn't anyone READ the damned Constitution anymore, here is an exact quote, the ONLY pertinent quote relating to how Representatives are to be elected and apportioned to the states:

Article 1, Section 2:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Granted, the 3/5ths rule, 1:30,000 ratio, and the initial apportionment are no longer valid, but pretty much the rest of it is. Nothing about districts, nothing about gerrymandering or anything to do with the current system. All it says is basically that Representatives are to be elected by the people of the states based on population, and a set ratio. To complicate matters, we have Public law 62-5 which limits the TOTAL amount of Representatives in the House to 435. It is perfectly Constitutional for one state to have a party-list PR system, and another the districting system, in fact, some states actually HAD no districts for at least a short time, in the Mid-20th century(New York, as an example), but they didn't last that long, mainly because Public Law 62-5 got in the way.

[The Magistrate]

14. Neither Of Us, Sir

Stated that the Constitution mandated the present method. Mr. Selatius stated that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to establish uniformly a party list system, and my comments were directed mostly to the secondary point he raised, that a 'winner take all' system will come to feature the minimum number of contenders, and maintain itself in that state.

[Solon]

15. On the Federal level, that is true...

But then again, the best way to approach this, at least in my view, is not on the Federal level but on the State level, work to abolish the districting system on a state by state basis, and once started, and implemented properly, I imagine that most states would adopt it in due course, especially if they get increasing pressure from states that already implemented it. Start with the more populous states, and then work to less populous states, the only states that wouldn't be affected would be those that have populations too small to have more than 1 representative.

Imagine a situation like this, let's say New York or California adopts a party-list or candidate-list system, and in either case, they elect a number of independent, third party, candidates, into the House. Regardless of who these third parties are, they may be able to, through caucusing with either the Democrats or Republicans, being able to leverage enough power to help pressure other states to adopt systems similar to the example states above. This would be similar to coalition governments in other nations, at least in the House, the Senate, I imagine, would remain the same, at least for a while, a few states, similar to Vermont, may end up having majority third parties, if only confined to those states, which would end up electing third party Senators.

Who knows, maybe we would end up with Representatives from all sorts of parties, and as they are elected to actual power the parties they represent will mature from "activist" approaches to politicking. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, the United States will be Multi-Partisan rather than Bi-Partisan.

[The Magistrate]

17. A Functioning Multi-Party System Would Be Fine With Me, Sir

The awkwardness of the transitional stages, however, present a dismaying prospect, and it is hard to imagine the thing ever actually being pushed through.

There is a degree of coallition building in our system, it seems to me, only it takes place before rather than after the elections. Both the parties actually do include a number of disparate factions, roughly corresponding to minor parties in a multi-party system, who do not always coexist effortlessly under the respective banners of Democrat and Republican, but which must come to some mutual accommodation if there is to be hope of prevailing in the general contests. There are factions, expressed as demographic groups identified by religion, ethnicity, gender, educational and income levels, etc., that even sometimes switch more or less from one party to the other in particular elections.

The problem with multi-party systems in which the general outcome is that no one party has a majority is that the smaller parties that can put a coallition over the top to a working majority can come to have an influence all out of proportion to their footing in the electorate, through the price exacted for consenting to join, and threat of bolting once the process of governing is underway. Paralysis of the government, and its inability to do what most of the people want it to do, can occur in consequence, just as we observe it do here frequently under a two party system. There are no panaceas, nothing that is sure to make government do what is either most popular in, or best for, a country.

"Many problems began as solutions."

[Solon]

18. To be frank, I don't care if it leads to occasional paralysis in the system...

I have no qualms in stating that this is for selfish, rather than altruistic reasons, but I'm for pushing for at-large PR representation simply because of two reasons, first, it would increase voter participation, overall, and second, it would allow ME to have an actual representative in Congress. See, I'm in a "safe" district, for a Republican Representative, in fact, the ONLY reason why I vote is for the Senate, President, and my State Rep, because I actually live in a competitive STATE district.

But the U.S. House Representative, Akin, he wins, every time, he's been in Congress since 2001, and, to be frank, I hate his guts, the racist, xenophobic asshole that he is, and in the last election he got 2/3rds of the vote. I'm frankly surprised that the Democrats even field a candidate here, he gets no money, that much is sure, and I had to search the Internet just to find his campaign site, and find out who the hell he was. One disturbing thing I find about Missouri is that ALL the seats seem to be safe seats for the incumbent parties.

I don't even have an option of "throwing away" my vote on a third party candidate, the only two third parties around here that field candidates are the Constitution Party(practically fascist), and the Libertarian Party(Repukes who smoke pot). Let's just say that my political predilections are completely opposite of both.

[calteacherguy]

27. Good points.

However, I still would prefer a parlimentary system. I think there is less opportunity for Party corruption when there are many parties instead of just two effective ones. Also, I think having viable third parties would lead to a greater participation by the electorate, and energize our political process.

I do not believe it is mere coincidence that the U.S. has such dismal voter turnout with the current system. That won't change by just tinkering with the present system, in my opinion. Many people feel they have lost their voice, and to an extent they are right.

[Selatius]

32. The problem with your approach, again, goes back to my first post.

Namely, you have to convince the existing parties in power to agree to switch over to a PR system. If we are talking about California, we must convince the Democratic machine, in essence, to give up power. If we're talking about Texas, the same holds true, except we're dealing with the Republican machine here.

If you had an unlimited amount of money to spend in California, you might drum up enough support despite opposition from establishment Democrats for a statewide proposition being placed on the ballot changing the way seats in the US House are awarded.

[calteacherguy]

25. Thank you for your very informative post.

I wish we had a parlimentary system of government. It's seems to me our current system is inferior to many governments in Europe.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

20. if the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, in your opinion...

...then why are you not actively working for a third party? Or is that what you do offline?

[Amonester]

8. Then I suggest a new party that will belong to "We The People" instead of...

Big Business & Co called "The We The People Party" or "The People's Party" for short.

First rule: limit each individual contribution to a "controlled" maximum.

Platform: pass a law to kick out all lobbyist money and replace it by public funding.

Imagine that: a political party that truly belongs to We The People...

[Amonester]

10. I fogot one "very important" bill: EQUAL ACCESS to m$m ... n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Who the people?

The idea of a political party is to promote a specific set of principles. No such set of principles is shared by a large segment of the American electorate.

A genuine "we the people" party would have very few policies beyond trying to win election, and it doing so would be a catastrophe.

[MasterDarkNinja]

9. The problem is the two party system is heavily favored by our form of government

The problem is chances are because the two parties in theory are the opposite of each other on most issues, a third party will probably hurt whichever of the two parties their politicial philosophy is closest to. I mean what if someone made an extreme liberal party because the democrats were only moderate liberals who didn't satisfy them, then they'd cause a conservative party (the republicans) to win the election, or at least cause them to stand a much better chance at winning with liberals splitting up their votes.

That's why lately I've been wishing we had a parliament form of government like Canada and Britain. There if you vote for a liberal party then it'll help have a liberal majority running the government. Even if one party, say of conservatives, were to have only one united party of conservatives, but the liberal parties held more seats then the conservative parties, then the majority party (the conservatives in my example) wouldn't be able to run the government just because they were a united party, while people of other politicial philosophies were divided into different, but very similar parties that cause each other to lose not just presidential elections, but elections for individual seats in congress to.

[Prophet 451]

11. The People's Party

I wish to announce the formation of The People's Party. The People's Party will strive to ensure the welfare of all citizens, rich and poor alike. We will take no donations from corporations, only from private citizens, small businessmen and foundations dedicated to the general welfare. We will offer a genuine alternative to the cult of wealth worship which envelops Washington. Our positions:

1. A fair balance between citizens and corporations. An end to corporate personhood and a fair tax burden on corporations. Currently, 60% of US corporations pay less than 5% tax. Around a quarter pay no tax at all and several have manipulated the tax code to ensure that government owes them money. We will end those abuses. We will end the use of paper moves to avoid paying taxes.

2. Universal healthcare. We will enact legislation to create a system of universal healthcare for all citizens, funded by taxes. Currently, Americans pay more for their healthcare than any nation in the western world and even then, that healthcare is often not up to the standards of other nations. We will change that, offering healthcare to all, funded from taxes. While the rich benefits as much as the poor from this, the rich also will pay more in taxes so it balances out. Government will negotiate with Big Pharma to obtain the best deal and use generics if necessary to keep costs as low as possible.

3. Genuine action on global warming. Enough with the practice of listening only to those who agree with you. Enough with ignoring the overwhelming consensus of science for the benefit of corporations. We will enact legislation creating a system of tax breaks to encourage the switch to hybrid cars. We will push for and fund a massive reinvestment in public transportation. We will require a gradual expansion of power from renewable sources and we will found a Presidential Committee on Global Warming to examine what else can be done.

4. Education. We will end the disastrous No Child Left Behind Act. Instead of one annual test, we will institute a system of gradual testing, taking an average of each child's marks for the year. We will raise teacher's wages to a reasonable living wage. We will institute a national curriculum, laying out concepts which each age group should be familiar with (while not stating how those subjects should be taught). We will fund a massive reinvestment in schools and reach a sensible compromise on the recognition of faith in a student's life.

5. Tax fairness. While it is fashionable to pretend that taxation is a theft by government, the fact remains that without the economic framework and regulation which can only be supplied by government, our way of life would collapse. Further, it is apparent that the only fair form of taxation is a progressive form of taxation. Those who obtain the most wealth rely most on those systems of economic security and regulation. Those who do best owe most to the nation because it is the nation which allows their wealth. It is the nation and it's citizens who buy their wares. It is the nation and it's citizens who are their employees, their consumers and, in many cases, their conscience. With that in mind, we will enact a large tax cut for the working poor, a smaller tax cut for the middle class and a tax raise for the wealthy and for corporations. We will reinstate the capital gains tax and the estate tax while exempting family farms and small businesses. We will massively simplify the tax code, saving expense and work while closing loopholes used to evade taxes. We will encourage the creation of small businesses to ensure that every citizen has a stake in the wellbeing of the economy and we will balance the budget on the banks of those wealthy enough to bear the burden.

6. An end to the drug war. The USA currently has over two million people in jail. This is higher than the population of some nations. Many are in prison purely for possession of drugs. We will, as soon as possible, order the release of all prisoners held solely for drug possession. We will legalise the consumption, growing and possession of cannabis, requiring only the same restrictions as imposed for alcohol (age limits, a license for sale and a prohibition on driving under the influence). We see no reason why cannabis, used responsibly, should not be legal. We will fund the development of a network of treatment centres for those wishing to free themselves of addiction. Recognising that drug addicition is often a factor in crime, we will push for systems to control and combat addiction in all prisons and we will ensure that non-violent drug offenders will, under normal circumstances, be sentanced to treatment rather than incarceration as treatment has been proven to be both more effective and cheaper. In short, if you're selling drugs to kids, expect to go to jail but if you're enjoying a joint in the privacy of your home or with a few friends, it isn't the business of law enforcement to intervene.

7. An end to war. We will withdraw the majority of American troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan, handing control of those nations to the UN until they can manage their own affairs. We will committ to only deploying US troops in self-defense, defense of our allies or to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. We will no longer interfere in the democratic rights of other nations. We will excercise our rights within the United Nations both responsibly and ethically. We will no longer supply support to repressive regimes. We will reorganise the military. Currently, the United States military is not fit for purpose. While the world is moving away from the liklihood of ground-based wars between nation-states, the military is still outfitted, trained and equipped to fight such wars. While we will retain some capacity for fighting such wars, the main focus of the military will become the fighting of information based small-engagement wars against multiple groups of non-state actors. This reorganisation is also calculated to save up to a quarter of the current military budget of $400 billion, giving the nation a $100 billion saving.

8. Same-sex marriage. We will enact federal law giving all same-sex couples who register their union in the same way as married couples the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples in all matters. We will leave the question of whether to describe the resulting unions as "marriage" to the individual states but we will enact legislation to ensure that such unions are treated in an identical manner to marriage in the eyes of the law.

9. Firearms control. While we recognise and uphold the right of all law-abiding adult Americans to own a firearm if they so choose, we will enact minimal precautions for the purpose of public safety such as setting a national age limit on the purchase of firearms, keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals and ensuring a minimum standard of safety knowledge from all purchasers of legal firearms. We will however, stiffen the penalties for illegal possession of a firearm or use of that firearm in a crime.

10. Law & Order. We will enact legislation instituting Life Without Parole as a sentancing option for all judges. We will ensure that the death penalty is reserved only for the worst of the worst offenders and we will place a moritorium on the enactment of the death penalty while a study is carried out in how fairly that punishment is applied. We will push for stiffer sentances for violent crime while pushing for lower sentances for non-violent crimes. We will encourage the recognition of a new category of crimes, that of "crime of desperation". We will ensure that the justice system is blind to colour, wealth, class, faith and appearence.


Anyone with me? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Amonester]

16. Good starting points up for debate, IMHO. :-)

Well, I would debate point 10 as I am against all "barbarian" death penalties for sure, because if a majority of "We The People" members will vote against it, it will be modified.

Side note: I "just" found out about this:

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/populists.html

I don't know if that would cause... ummm... (unsignificant?) problems. ('hope not)

[Prophet 451]

29. Well

I'm basing my starting position there on two things: The first is that on a personal level, I believe the death sentance to be justified (in certain, very limited circumstances). Also, I believe (and this is from memory so I'm open to correction) that there is strong majority support for the death penalty (under limited circumstances).

That said, if the majority of party members voted to end support for it, I would actually be slightly releived. I know we should have better ways of handling people like Dahmer, West, Shipman (who are the kind of people I would support the penalty for).

I had actually heard of the Populists although I didn't know they were officially termed the People's Party. Since they've been defunct for years though and considering how influential they were (first party to push for progressive income tax), naming a party after them is no bad thing :)

[Prophet 451]

30. Additional point

- A ban on paid-for lobbying. The rules would have to be carefully written but the intention is that you can have activist groups (i.e. the ACLU, Log Cabin Republicans, whatever) lobbying but not the giant lobbying firms which make a living by screwing up the functioning of governance.

[aquart]

13. Why? We don't do the work with the parties we have.

We LET the right seize control from the bottom...the little places where it's all work and no glamour.

It's garbage to think a shiny new party will make it all better. For a year, maybe two, till we get bored.

Meantime, those Christianists have infiltrated everywhere while shouting: "Look over there at the Islamic fundamentalists!"

How about taking back the parties we have?

[JI7]

19. this is like the approval ratings for Congress members

people tend to rate their own members high but overall Congress low.

and with Presidential Politics they will say it would be a good thing to have 3rd party that is competitive but wont actually do anything to support it and would probably be more likely in the end to vote for one of the 2 major parties depending on which way they lean more.

as others have said, it's our system that favors 2 parties.

[AnOhioan]

21. Having another (or two more) parties would be beneficial

Unfortunately, both the Democrats and the Republicans have a stake in maintaining the status quo. While the Democrats are inarguably the better of the two parties, they enjoy their hold on power just as much.

[dajoki]

24. Which of these existing parties do you recommend

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party) (1992).
Green Party of the United States (1996).
Libertarian Party
America First Party (2002)
American Fascist Party
American Heritage Party (2000)
American Independent Party (1968)
American Nazi Party (1959)
American Party (1969)
American Patriot Party (2003)
American Reform Party (1997)
Centrist Party (United States) (2006)
Christian Freedom Party (2004)
Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)
Citizens For Reform Party (2005)
Commonwealth Party
Communist League (US) (2004)
Communist Party USA (1919)
Free People's Movement (2002)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1969)
Independent American Party (1998)
Jefferson Republican Party
Ku Klux Klan (1866)
Labor Party (1995)
Marijuana Party (2002)
National Socialist Movement (1974)
New American Independent Party (2004)
New Union Party (1974)
Peace and Freedom Party (1967)
Personal Choice Party (1997)
Populist Party of America (2002)
Prohibition Party (1867)
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995)
Socialist Action (1983)
Socialist Alternative (1986)
Socialist Equality Party (1953)
Socialist Labor Party (1876)
Socialist Party USA (1973)
Socialist Workers Party (1938)
United Citizens Party (1969)
Workers Party, USA
Workers World Party (1959)
Working Families Party (1998)
World Socialist Party of the United States (1916)

[greyghost]

26. Libertarian of course...n/t

[Pyrzqxgl]

31. What about The I.W.W. (Workers of the World, Wobblies, One Big Union)

I'm not sure they consider themselves a political party but they still publish "The Little Red Song Book" and have
meetings, buttons, n' stuff.

[Selatius]

33. IWW decided almost a hundred years ago to barr political activity as an organization

It does not endorse any political party, nor does it intend to be a political party. Its goal is to represent workers first and foremost. What workers think in terms of politics is their own business, and what workers do in their spare time is, again, their own business. IWW as an entity is politically neutral, but the majority of its members are leftists of all kinds.