English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

dems and pugs are both soaked with money and neither serves the people, they only care about keeping their jobs and maintaining their own power......this is obvious...

so why wont the public support a third party........i sooooooooo want the two party system to end

2006-09-07 11:53:13 · 15 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Simple math: we have a winner-take-all-system. Third parties are nearly impossible when winning one vote more than your opponent(s) means you win everything.

2006-09-07 11:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by Pepper 4 · 0 0

The main reason that third parties fail is that people in general think that third parties will fail and would rather not 'waste their vote'. Essentially, the idea that a third party cannot gain enough public support to make a difference becomes self-fulfilling.

There are some other factors, however, that contribute to the third party problem. One is what I call the money-notoriety paradox. One must gain notoriety to gain enough grass-root money for a succesful campaign; however, one must have a lot of money, to advertise enough to gain that much notoriety. Basically, notoriety requires money and money requires notoriety; a third party begins with neither.

Dispite the problems that an up-and-coming third party may have, they do have influence on elections. Most notable may be the elections of 1892, 1912, 1924, 1980, 1992, and 2000. In the aforementioned 1912 election, 'Teddy' Roosevelt won 88 electoral votes for the Progressive Party (known as the 'Bull Moose' party) after he went third party due to losing the Republican primaries to Taft. This split on the Republican side was enough to win Wilson the election with only 41.8% of the popular vote.

When a primary political party starts to fail, it is either fixed (this is usually the result after a third party does well the prior election), or replaced by a splinter group (such as the Republicans replacing the Whigs). If our current primary parties cannot take the first path, the second is bound to happen in the not to distant future (2016 perhaps?). There is always the possibility of a third party unrelated to the primary parties gaining a holding in the political arena, however, given past records, this is unlikely (but not impossible) for the future.

2006-09-07 19:23:47 · answer #2 · answered by wiegraff13 3 · 0 0

If you think its bad now, imagine how much more difficult it would be to pass legislation with a third party when you have different agendas and shifting alliances and need a majority to pass a bill. A two part system is the same as a democracy, its a terrible form of government, but the best there is.

2006-09-07 19:01:15 · answer #3 · answered by williegod 6 · 0 0

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 2 party system is a disaster! They'll fight each other even on a good idea (if they ever come up w/ one). We need a party that represents the average working Joe. Both of the ones we have to chose from now have been hijacked by lobbyists and special interest groups. But it all comes down to money. And without the financial backing of those groups, you can't get in office.

2006-09-07 19:01:16 · answer #4 · answered by rummy714 3 · 0 0

Our system is biased to two parties (at least for prez).

People are sheep and won't "risk" throwing their vote away on a 3rd party. Very few solid third party candidates end up in the running (Perot had a decent showing). In most cases a strong 3rd party ends up skewing it for one of the dominant parties (Perot running helped the dems, John "somebody" helped the Repubs in the election with Carter and Bush I).

2006-09-07 18:59:50 · answer #5 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0 0

Because the Congressional districting system and the electoral college system are both set up to insure those two parties remain in power.

If the two parties cannot agree on anything else, they can agree in acting to ensure that one or the other of them remains in power.

2006-09-07 18:59:21 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

The campaign laws set up up the two parties make it very hard for a new party to properly fund itself.



Max Finn for FL gov

2006-09-07 18:55:53 · answer #7 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0 0

it will take a Ross Perot like bank account to make a go at it. (Bill Gates for President??? sorry that was a Windows bug) Or real campaign finance reform (LOL)

John Anderson 1980 (I door knocked for John)

got to get over people thinking they will be throwing there vote away, who then vote for the lesser of two evils....

Terminator 2012? (He'll be back)

2006-09-07 19:23:35 · answer #8 · answered by shazam 6 · 0 0

I think most people view politics and vote with who helps them the best financially or who lines up with their own ideals.... voters don't look at what's best for humanity overall

2006-09-08 12:26:32 · answer #9 · answered by s_e_e 4 · 0 0

The public can support anyone they want. It's the Illuminati who hold all power over the government. Whom they want in power, they place in power.

2006-09-07 18:58:05 · answer #10 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers