Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

"Majority Of Americans want a third party"Follow

#1 Oct 15 2013 at 5:40 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,346 posts
Link

Quote:
A majority of Americans want a third major party, a new Gallup poll found.

Marking the highest point in the Gallup poll’s ten-year history, 60% of Americans said they think Democrats and Republicans aren’t doing “an adequate job of representing the American people” and do “such a poor job that a third major party is needed.”

The poll surveyed 1,028 adults from Oct. 3-6, just days into a federal government shutdown that has lasted a full two weeks.

Just 26% of Americans said the country’s two major parties were representing Americans.

Self-identified Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to see the need for a third party—49% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans said they saw the need for a third party—but a full 71% of Independents supported the idea of a third party.


Given the way things have been going for the US, I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't become a real possibility if things keep moving in the direction they've been going. It's not a though there's not any historical precedent(Whigs for example). The question is where a third party would stand in the American political system. Would it be further to the left? Somewhere in the center? Or further to the right?
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#2 Oct 15 2013 at 6:08 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support. Doing so creates a greater chance for a 3rd party to win. However, society has twisted the message to get people to vote by saying that you don't have a voice if you don't vote.

To address your question, it would most definitely have to be in the center. We already have extremists on both sides, but people are afraid to run the center because they become shunned from their party. Ask Gov. Christie, the only Republican that a Democrat would vote for.
#3 Oct 15 2013 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Oct 15 2013 at 6:26 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.



If the people that are running are distinct, then yes. I don't see the issue with someone winning with 37%. If you subtract all of the people who vote "for the sake of voting", for political affiliations or the lesser of two evils, I'm sure each candidate would be under 50%. The only difference is, you would be able to vote for someone that more closely represents your values. There would be some overlap, so it's not like it would be an entirely new platform.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 2:27pm by Almalieque
#5 Oct 15 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
The issue is that the third party that the Dems are envisioning would be the Progressive party, further to the left than the current Dem center-left. The party that the Republicans are envisioning would be the Tea Party put into their own little box to get them out of the way. (Or, to Tea partiers, shedding the RINOs and being the True Conservative Party (tm).)

So really, between the two group, they want four parties.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#6 Oct 15 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
but a full 71% of Independents supported the idea of a third party.
I'm not sure if I want to say "duh" or "they're generally morons so who cares."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Oct 15 2013 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support.

Of course you do. But you make yourself politically irrelevant by doing so. Politicians don't need to care about people who aren't going to vote.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 15 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Duplicate.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 9:14am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#9 Oct 15 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Maybe something more than three.




It would take substantial changes in the way we conduct politics in the US. FPTP would have to go, coalition gov's and semi-allied parties would be a thing, legislation would be much easier to pass unless the percentile to pass wasn't increased.

What would likely happen is you'd get multiparty candidates, multiple affirmative votes per ballot, and a victory percentage of ~60% or so.

All this is fairly irrelevant due to entrenchment.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#10 Oct 15 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Catwho wrote:
The issue is that the third party that the Dems are envisioning would be the Progressive party, further to the left than the current Dem center-left. The party that the Republicans are envisioning would be the Tea Party put into their own little box to get them out of the way. (Or, to Tea partiers, shedding the RINOs and being the True Conservative Party (tm).)

So really, between the two group, they want four parties.

Historically speaking - at least as far back as my 7th grade American History class, these groups were defined within the two party system along a spectrum of thought/action.

Radical -> Liberal -> Moderate ->Conservative - > Reactionary

The Tea Partiers have effectively become a single issue party for health care reform reform.

I'd think through the greens and/or libertarians would be the best avenues to push for additional party status.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Oct 15 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Esquire has a new article out with lots of pretty graphs and charts about the "New American Center". Take it with a grain of salt but, hey, pretty graphs.

Edit: Link would be nice.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:30am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Oct 15 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Quote:
Of course you do. But you make yourself politically irrelevant by doing so. Politicians don't need to care about people who aren't going to vote.


Stupid but persistent argument, of course they do. If your base doesn't vote because you've alienated them, that's a problem for you. Politicians take steps to avoid this, and to win back disaffected voters, all the time.

The idea of people not voting makes liberals pretty uncomfortable, doesn't it? You guys should pass a law against it, like Australia.

@#%^ everyone who posted between Jophiel and me, especially Timelord.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 9:31am by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#13 Oct 15 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Won't happen. The idea of people voting makes conservatives too uncomfortable for it to pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Oct 15 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Well, you can get out of it by paying a fine. Maybe you can persuade them it'd be another way to impoverish the working class.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#15 Oct 15 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Stupid but persistent argument, of course they do. If your base doesn't vote because you've alienated them, that's a problem for you. Politicians take steps to avoid this, and to win back disaffected voters, all the time.

A party's "base" doesn't consist of people who refuse to vote. That's sort of going against the stock definition of "base". People who huff and say "They're all jerks and liars and Republicrats and Demolicans so I'm just not going to vote" aren't anyone's base.

Elections are won by motivating your real base in greater numbers than the other guy's base and then picking off enough on the fringe to make up the deficit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Oct 15 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Esquire has a new article out with lots of pretty graphs and charts about the "New American Center". Take it with a grain of salt but, hey, pretty graphs.

Edit: Link would be nice.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:30am by Jophiel
I like the red/blue tinted heads of Obama and Romney.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#17 Oct 15 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Their quiz at the bottom told me I was on the Bleeding Left and not part of the New American Center. I felt so left out Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Oct 15 2013 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,065 posts
Quote:
Elections are won by motivating your... base in greater numbers than the other guy's base


Yes, I know I'm correct.

Quote:
People who huff and say "They're all jerks and liars and Republicrats and Demolicans so I'm just not going to vote" aren't anyone's base.


Sure they are*. That's what a member of your base sounds like when they're disaffected because they feel your party isn't serving their interests/is too homogenised.

*Specifically, they're probably Democrats.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#19 Oct 15 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
Sure they are

No, they're not. But I suppose this won't move forward with you insisting that they are so... sure. Have fun not voting and "making a difference".

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Oct 15 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
Elinda wrote:
Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?
As long as he's the guy I wanted. Smiley: wink


She could be the gal I wanted instead, but I can't say I've seen a serious female contender for presidential candidacy that I've liked.
#21 Oct 15 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Governor LePage endorses the 37% threshold.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Oct 15 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,559 posts
So 71% of US citizens want Canadian politics.

For what it's worth it works quite well for the most part. Especially when you have a minority government. No party has the votes to pass a bill on their own so they have to team up with one of the other parties, makes for easy compromise and more tempered solutions. I expect your rules would have to change pretty dramatically to accommodate it though.

We actually have more than three parties but the big three are the only really relevant ones.
#23 Oct 15 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote. I don't mean that in some technical 'gotcha' sense, if you can't see it I sincerely pity you. What happens if they aren't motivated? They don't vote. Not voting and the threat of not voting changes the way politicians behave and is central to winning elections.

Quote:
Have fun not voting and "making a difference".


Have fun being a ****** too ****** in the head to accept any political reality that differs from a ******** line you got fed.

There are things you can do to make a difference politically. Voting isn't one of them, obviously, and neither is not voting. You're incorrect in assuming I don't vote, though. Don't mistake my disdain for a tired, senseless argument for some kind of personal stake. Again, I mean. Don't do it again.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#24 Oct 15 2013 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?
As long as he's the guy I wanted. Smiley: wink


She could be the gal I wanted instead, but I can't say I've seen a serious female contender for presidential candidacy that I've liked.

The granola girls (environmental policy wonks) in my office are wanting Elizabeth Warren to run. They like her better'n Hilary.

I'm thinking Sue Collins is trying to put her name out there as a serious female Republican contender for higher political office .
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Oct 15 2013 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I'm not clear a 'third' party is the best answer. Do you want a president that gets into office with 37% of the vote?

Governor LePage endorses the 37% threshold.

Dont' sell him short. He got 39%.

Third-party spoilage does leave a bitter lingering after taste though.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#26 Oct 15 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)