approval rating.
2007-02-09 09:14:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A greater number of choices is seldom if ever a bad thing. And although Democrats and Republicans alike will hate me for this, as far as I'm concerned they're interchangeable. The war in Iraq is a great example. People (myself included) can bash Bush all they want for the disaster he's created, let's not for a second forget that the war happened will full complicity and support from the Democratic Party, other than a few commendable exceptions here and there. All this talk about how they were "duped" is a steaming pile of bovine stool samples: they couldn't be bothered to ask the tough questions back in '02 and '03, because they were too busy worrying about short-term political convenience and wrapping themselves in the flag.
2007-02-09 09:25:17 · answer #1 · answered by David 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The word viable is, indeed, the most crucial. Two should be enough, but alas, neither of the existing ones seem to be stepping up and providing a platform that thinking individuals can whole heartedly throw support behind. So if a third party...one that came up with a completely different platform from the other two...and perhaps enlisted honest, decent and genuine individuals to represent the country...it wouldn't be a bad idea.
My concern is adding a party that would only water down sincere voting.
2007-02-09 09:20:41 · answer #2 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would not make a difference if there a 3rd party because the two parties are big tent parties. The party system in the Untied States promotes broad issuses, and the democratic party already has populists, socialists, neo-liberals, nannie staters. The republican party , liberatarian, social conservatives, nationalists, consitutionalists. The two party system in America represents the board spectrum of society better anyways. Its the potlicans that wedge issuses rather than the general public. The middle class, working class, upper class differences are smaller than the elites that run the game in washington. Throw in a 3rd party its not gonna make difference in getting the agenda across. Its the citizens job to call the congress person to get thier issuse noticed in washington.
2007-02-09 09:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
VIABLE is the key word here. I have seen a lot of third parties come and go over the past 50 years. None of THEM were viable and none of the current ones are.
2007-02-09 09:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by mustanger 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
third social gathering strikes have a problematical time. in many circumstances they are geared up around a unmarried situation and characteristic an excellent extra stable time elevating the money mandatory to run a campaign. definite, we choose a conceivable third social gathering. a social gathering that may no longer afraid to tell the yank human beings the certainty, which we refuse to hearken to extra often than no longer and a social gathering which could rather shake issues up. i might rather choose to work out a third social gathering that by some potential manages to charm to ALL areas of the rustic and ranging ideals.
2016-11-03 00:25:57 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think both parties are so full of it it isn't funny. I would be ecstatic to see a third party come in and fill the void.
Sadly, I'm afraid Ms. Clinton's Socialist party may be the "third" party i don't want.
2007-02-09 09:19:01 · answer #6 · answered by koepnick012787 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America would benefit from a viable second party.
2007-02-09 09:17:23 · answer #7 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i would love to see a third party come into play..
2007-02-09 09:19:47 · answer #8 · answered by dizzle 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think so. I don't see how anyone could be any worse than the two parties we have now.
2007-02-09 09:18:42 · answer #9 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋