People seem generaly unhappy with both republicans and democrates. I personally think that a third and fourth party would be beneficial to our country. I think more people would vote and politicians would behave more respectfully and serve the public better. Is this too far fetched of an idea. Do you agree or disagree with me on this
2006-10-07 12:29:32 · 15 answers · asked by tranquilized_inaz 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Great idea but the other two parties control the media and the money and therefore the uninformed voters, which is what most voters in this country are. Thank you for being open minded and even if a question like this only gets one person to open their eyes and make an informed vote it was well worth it.
2006-10-07 12:33:59 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There already are third, fourth, etc., parties. Ever heard of the Green Party? The Libertarians? The Constitution Party? In New York there are the Right to Life, Liberal, and Conservative Parties. In California, there are the American Independant and Peace-and-Freedom Parties. Don't you remember the fact that a large part of the reason that there was a "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County, Florida was because there were 10 Presidential candidates to vote for.
2006-10-07 12:38:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If there have been a effective candidate... Ron Paul and Ralph Nader both are not what i'd vote for. immediately, the Democrats are capturing themselves in the foot again. With this spending kit we are seeing, it heavily isn't lengthy earlier once again the Republicans are on suitable of issues, that may be extra perfect for each American if we were there now. that's unhappy to work out them snub their noses at historic previous and bypass ahead with some thing all of us understand will be a disaster. With the Congressional Republicans status good, and with a bit of luck the Senate Republicans will do a similar... we are able to teach the country again who the added perfect party for economic boom and prosperity is....
2016-12-04 09:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To make that needed change possible you first gotta take money out of the political campaigns.A third party at this moment doesn't have a real chance because it lacks the resources of the established two parties
2006-10-07 12:57:48 · answer #4 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are other parties, but you risk your vote. An example is Clinton won in 92 because the Conservative vote was split between Perot and Bush.
It may be able to happen in the less populated states.
2006-10-07 12:35:26 · answer #5 · answered by rjf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sounds like a good idea, but it just splits the majority vote. Remember what happened with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party.
2006-10-07 12:41:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Libertarian....
Perhaps in the interest fairness, we could allow for runoff elections between the top 2 vote getters should no one get 50% of the vote. If this was the case, Clinton would have never won.
2006-10-07 12:35:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would love a third party as long as they are not like the Greens or the communists. I could easily go libertarian.
2006-10-07 12:31:03 · answer #8 · answered by Have gun, will travel. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I don't think a third party is the answer though. Third, fourth, fifth, and sixth might work.
2006-10-07 12:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by Lisa M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree. There is a very live attempt to jump start one on the internet for 2008:
http://www.unity08.com
check it out.
2006-10-07 12:34:18 · answer #10 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋