I know you are sick of the democrats. I know you are sick of the republicans. I'm embarassed for both of our political parties, admit it, so are you. We need a 3rd party, a strong 3rd party to lead the country. Does anyone else agree or is everyone too polarized to agree on anything anymore?
2006-11-06 14:18:58 · 13 answers · asked by Griff 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
And I mean a valid 3rd party. I'm aware of what we have now.
2006-11-06 14:22:00 · update #1
Thanks for your great responses, everyone.
2006-11-06 14:47:07 · update #2
We definitely need choices other than the ones we have now, but the game's rigged to keep both in power. I honestly don't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats, as both are heavily influenced by big-money interests with their own agendas.
One thing keeping a third party from making a move nationally are the laws that decide who can appear on the ballot. These vary from state to state, and seem set up to make it hard as hell for anyone but the 2 parties to be represented.
People need to see beyond stupid slogans, celebrity endorsements and snazzy advertising, and concentrate on what each candidate's really about. The voting record of all our representatives, local, state and federal, is available (usually online), as this is a public record. The info is there......
2006-11-06 14:35:33 · answer #1 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only way to start one now is to take Joe Lieberman and Joe Schwarz (both moderate Congressmen who got thrown out in their primaries) and start a "moderate" party. John McCain might be another draft pick for you as well. Of course, no one knows what a "moderate" believes.
Seriously now...
You start a third party in the same way that the GOP got started. You get a group of people with strong beliefs (the GOP started with Slavery) who are being ignored by the other parties, and you have their ideas catch on with the population.
Dude, if you have any ideas to "lead the country" we're all ears. I doubt that you have any real ideas that aren't already being proposed by the current parties (and blocked by the other). In conversations I've had with people who feel this way they've not been able to give me a single viable new idea.
2006-11-06 14:31:16 · answer #2 · answered by geek49203 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. But the final 3rd get together to win the Presidency was once the Republicans underneath Abraham Lincoln. The intent is that the electoral vote process was once modeled on Frederick the Great's and favors countrywide applicants over neighborhood ones and small states over giant ones. So a gloomy horse who does now not reap the endorsement of a main get together hardly ever will get greater than 10% of the vote. If a get together are not able to get an absolute majority of the electoral votes, it has no impact, considering this can be a winner-take-all process and minor events don't have a say in forming coalition governments, as in parliamentary democracies. The 2 main events are very inclusive and really aggressive, so they generally tend to separate the vote moderately calmly considering the get together platform is dynamic and they generally tend to co-decide the suggestions of any minor get together that involves public prominence. They don't expel individuals folks that fail to stick to the get together line.
2016-09-01 08:25:08 · answer #3 · answered by mcguinn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would take a dynamic personality or personalities ( kind of like Ross Perot but not as goofy ). It would require people to think about a metamorphosis - that is not voting Republican or Democrat just because their daddy did. Also, people in this country need to get past the idea that if a candidate has not made a mistake, then he is a good candidate. People also suck up the line that, "well, he goes to church so he must be honest/good./fair" because that is just another lie the candidate is selling in order to get your vote. You don't get to the White House, or to be a governor, or to be a senator by being a good Christian. Kennedy was supposed to be a 'good' Catholic. We know that is not true. People should go to church for spiritual leaders, not cast their votes for them. I want somebody that know economics, international affairs, and how to make this country better for everyone. We know that even religious people are not good at spirtual leadership (Haggard is just the latest, and of course the Catholic priests ) so why do they think politicians would be any better at being 'spiritual' and 'religious'?
2006-11-06 14:30:34 · answer #4 · answered by commonsense 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ross Perot tried in the 90's. George Wallace tried in the 70's. Others have tried through the years, and have failed, mostly due to lack of money. The most successful third party candidate, from the "Bull Moose" party was Teddy Roosevelt, in 1912.
He came in 2nd place, beating incumbant Taft, and losing to Wilson. Money runs politics, and Perot was only as successful as he was due to his own personal wealth. Until WE, the people, finally get fed up with the status-quo, it will remain the status quo.
Until then, it's the Demo-Publicans.
2006-11-06 14:45:25 · answer #5 · answered by greg j. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we need ANOTHER party. Parties are only created by groups of people opposing each other. If we had a third party there would only be more squabbling. There was a time in our history without political parties. It is known as "The Era of Good Feelings". It happened during Monroe's presidency. It might be nice if we stopped labeling each other and resort to name calling, but as long as there are issues people will disagree and parties will be created. Sad, but true.
2006-11-06 14:29:38 · answer #6 · answered by onanist13 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you that we need a third party in American politics. When a party in power here makes themselves look really bad, the other guys only have to not look as bad to get elected. They don't have to have a plan or really work to earn it. I don't think it should be this way. A third party would force the two existing parties to work harder and, hopefully, be more honest. They don't want this. Because they don't want it is the best reason to make them adapt or die. I think we should have 3, 4, or 5.
2006-11-06 14:25:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Reeducating people to stop thinking the Dem's are for the poor and Reps are for the rich. Both are for themselves and don't give a damn about you and me.
Than put a party out there that isn't full of wacko's. We need a middle class americans party.
2006-11-06 14:24:35 · answer #8 · answered by rikv77 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It will take a lot of money. And a lot of people with money. Still it would be better than what we have now. I'd love a 3 rd moderate party.
2006-11-06 14:21:29 · answer #9 · answered by leena 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The only way I can see a strong 3rd party emerging is if we had proportional representation
2006-11-06 14:29:31 · answer #10 · answered by Molly 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋