Would it help or only create more problems and finger pointing?
2006-11-26 01:27:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nancy o, that had nothing to do with my question.
2006-11-26 01:35:40 · update #1
I think it it would force the parties to understand they have to start working together.
Currently both parties are focused on what is best for the party, NOT what is best for the people, a third party would force an end to this abomination.
2006-11-26 02:32:06 · answer #1 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only way Third Parties can work in a Democracy or a Republic, is to have 2 elections.
The top two parties would have a second election to actually allow the will of the people to receive the most popular vote.
Otherwise, Third Parties are merely spoilers, such as Perot's run in 1992.
Third Parties allow someone like Clinton to get elected.
2006-11-26 09:35:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The media will only ignore the third party candidate
cause lack of credibility so to speak.
Look at how Pat Buchanan lost in 2000 and Ralph Nader
tried to get votes away from Bush in the past elections. The media is focused on the candidate with
the qualifications to run no matter how popular or hated
he is. So we're stuck with the two party system and that's
how the cookie crumbles.
2006-11-26 09:34:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A third party would be populated only by fringe elements from the other two parties who feel under-represented. The net affect of third party participation is to steal votes from one of the other parties, thus improving the chances of the non-affected party in winning the election. Ross Perot's run helped swing a Democratic win, and Ralph Nader was directly responsible for putting Bush in office in 2000. Had the Green party voted Dem, Gore would be in office now, and we would be at peace.
2006-11-26 09:39:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Third party? I think it'd be nice if the US even had a second party, instead of just having the left and right wings of the boot - on - your - neck party. Both the D's and the R's think that strong government power solves problems instead of creating them, in spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
2006-11-26 11:14:17 · answer #5 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whereas third parties are stronger in the UK, Australia and in heaps of other countries, at least in the US legislators are less likely to vote on party lines. There is more diversity of opinion within the Democrats and Republicans than in the major parties of other anglosphere countries.
2006-11-26 09:33:39 · answer #6 · answered by Mardy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it had a strong one that would be helpful.
I have noticed that most 3rd party candidates are viewed with suspicion or contempt (i.e. Ross Perot), and are accused of "splitting the ticket" and diverting votes that may have brought one of the other two parties into power.
2006-11-26 10:08:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Another comparison of the Iraq war and and WWII: America's loses in this current conflict represent about a half a percentage point when placed along side the "just war"
Stop it.
As for a third party-- it'll never materialize.
We're caught between the Gambino and Bonnano crime families.
2006-11-26 09:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
A third party is just for cop outs
2006-11-26 09:54:51 · answer #9 · answered by goodtimesgladly 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
3rd parties usually help the winner win, like in 2000 if it wasnt for nader, bush would have lost and that would have been bad
2006-11-26 10:23:16 · answer #10 · answered by libshateme 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋