When will we be able to choose from more than the two of the lesser evils?

Question

And why is the system set up so that anyone from a third party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell?

---The rep. and the dem. get hundreds of thousands in funding...
anyone from third party it has to be all out of their own pocket..
and there are hundreds of other dirty little tactics they use to ensure a third party member doesn't have access to the public, media, funds, access, etc...

Answer 1

2008 - there are four....

republican party
democratic party
libertarian party
and green party

Answer 2

Party politics is merely a front to make people think they have a say in what is happening.
The agenda behind the government is decided by the needs of the New World Order, and will proceed no matter which party is in power, unless we make some drastic changes.

I have an idea. It was written for the UK but is applicable to anywhere in the world.

The present method of governing Britain is out of date


My idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.
When the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.

Now, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.

So each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.
In other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.
This is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.

As the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.
What we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.
I propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.
If they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.

The benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.
It is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.
There would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.
We would overcome the problems created by too much power in too few hands

I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.

Answer 3

Either you are too young to know that the political landscape hasn't always been as it is today, or you're completely forgotten the last forty years of political evolution. Let me take you back in time. There were two major parties; Republican and Democrat. Within those parties their were people who were liberal, conservative, and moderate. Yes, their once were conservative democrats. They called them Dixiecrats. Here is an abridged version of the platforms of each party;
Democrats believed education and care of the elderly promoted an environment for business to prosper, which generated taxes to build a strong national defense.
Republicans believed a strong national defense promoted an environment for business to prosper, which generates taxes to educate and care for the elderly.
They had the same goals just a different means to the end.

The people within those parties were either liberal, conservative, or moderate. Here's an abridged description of their philosophies;
Liberal: Wealth redistribution. Take money from the middle-class and give it to the poor.
Conservative: Wealth accumulation. Take money from the middle-class and keep it for themselves.
Moderate; Keep your damn hands out of my pocket.

Forty years ago moderates were the majority in both parties and were able to keep the government fairly balanced. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision on abortion started a moral debate in national politics, which started a split in the moderate middle-class. People started choosing liberal or conservative candidates based on their moral beliefs rather than their political views. This split became more pronounced with gay rights issues. Today we have a congress that is split liberal or conservative with no moderate representation whatsoever. This is why it appears you can only vote for the lesser of two evils in any campaign.
If you were to take the moral issues--abortion and gay rights--out of your political decision making process, where would you stand? Wouldn't you agree as a member of the middle-class that you would be a moderate? That would leave you with a decision as to which party to support. You can do that by considering if education is the key to prosperity or national defense.
Once you have that mindset, you must listen to the candidates and determine if they think likewise.

Answer 4

Coundn't the government itself sponsor each qualified candidate itself by controlling the debates and the airing of them? This would allow more diversity in our elections and all the people could hear proposals from each candidate, not just the ones who can afford to be on T.V. The government could air and sponsor debates between the candidates and we could truly see which one will represent us the best. Now with how elections are set up, candidates would have to get some sort of sponsor to give them money in order to advertise themselves thereby becoming a slave to that sponsor. This is why, I feel, our leaders cannot represent the people nowadays. They are slaves to their sponsors and their own greed and have the parties ideals, and their own on the agenda and not the wishes of the people. The government should set up the debates between each candidate from each party and have sole control over broadcasting it.

Answer 5

Good Lord. How many presidential candidates do you want? About all anyone has been able to come up with for a third choice were Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson and "sucking sound" Ross Perot.

Answer 6

They will do every thing they can to keep that from happening. They would probably not care about sharing power, but don't step between the national political parties and their corporate and special interest money.

Answer 7

As soon as the libertarians give up the "legalize marijuana" fight, they could be contenders. They just believe that government should only exist to protect your rights, not give hand outs, not limit your freedoms.

Their creed is "You can do anything you want, as long as it doesn't impact anyone else."

So you see why the potheads want in.

Answer 8

never.......the system is set up to prevent a third party. it would recquire massive redistricting to accomodate a third party...youd have a better chance of winning the lottery

Answer 9

When we have 3 people running for president.

Answer 10

When the republicans come back towards the center from their radical Neocon philosophy.