Idea for the two-party haters and third party voters

[Craig234]

Have a third party convention. Of all the candidates not running one of of the two main party tickets, have one convention to select one ticket.

Greens, Libertarians, those Anarcho-conservatives who want to get rid of all police, all of them vote for one "third party ticket".

This would reduce the splitting of their votes into all kinds of candidates, a tiny bit here and there.

It'd be hard for them, voting for someone who they might disagree with, but it could provide an outlet for their anger and desire to put some pressure on the two parties.

 

[Macamus Prime]

,.. but it could provide an outlet for their anger and desire to put some pressure on the two parties.

Anger and desire, which comes from pure stupid does not go away - because the person will always be stupid.

 

[Atreus21]

That's a neat idea.

 

[DesiPower]

It's a slippery slope, once there is 3 then whats stopping from 4 or 5 or 6... multiparty sucks balls... its disastrous...

 

[PokerGuy]

That doesn't solve anything. The far left crazy fringe wants a more left wing candidate. The far right fringe wants a far left candidate. How could you possibly lump those two together, see who comes out on top and think have real third party candidate? That candidate would clearly only get votes from one side of the spectrum.

Dumb idea is dumb.

 

[Atreus21]

It's a slippery slope, once there is 3 then whats stopping from 4 or 5 or 6... multiparty sucks balls... its disastrous...

Disagree. It brings about exactly the same dynamic as a two party system, except with "coalitions" not parties.

 

[Craig234]

It's a slippery slope, once there is 3 then whats stopping from 4 or 5 or 6... multiparty sucks balls... its disastrous...

Because the entire point of having a 'third party convention' to select one candidate is to select one out of all the parties. How many Republican conventions have a 'slippery slope'?

 

[DesiPower]

Disagree. It brings about exactly the same dynamic as a two party system, except with "coalitions" not parties.

You think its bad not with all the backroom negotiations? think again, it will be 100 times worse AND you think politicians are not doing their work? all they will ever do in multiparty system is try to save their "coalitions"

 

[DesiPower]

Because the entire point of having a 'third party convention' to select one candidate is to select one out of all the parties. How many Republican conventions have a 'slippery slope'?

not sure if I understand you correctly but comparing conventions to parties is like comparing ping-pong balls and blue balls.

 

[Atreus21]

You think its bad not with all the backroom negotiations? think again, it will be 100 times worse AND you think politicians are not doing their work? all they will ever do in multiparty system is try to save their "coalitions"

That's what happens in all multiparty states, and we have the same trouble as they do.

Politics is politics.

 

[DesiPower]

That's what happens in all multiparty states, and we have the same trouble as they do.

Politics is politics.

...and its bad, its much worse then 2 party system. I come from a country with multiparty system and IMO, its hell

 

[sm625]

It is too far gone for anything like this. By not forcing runoff voting of some sort, people have professed what can only be described as fatal ignorance. Nothing short of civil war will fix it.

 

[Atreus21]

...and its bad, its much worse then 2 party system. I come from a country with multiparty system and IMO, its hell

Shrug. I'll defer to your experience. I did some studying on two party vs. multiparty systems for a poli sci class awhile back. Concluded that they were different in name, not substance.

You either have two major parties which either absorb third parties or adopt parts of their platforms to satisfy their complaints, or you have multiple viable parties which once elected forge alliances that recreate the dualism so often complained about in the US.

What country, incidentally, did you emigrate from?

 

[boochi]

Have a third party convention.

 

[jackstar7]

That doesn't solve anything. The far left crazy fringe wants a more left wing candidate. The far right fringe wants a far left candidate. How could you possibly lump those two together, see who comes out on top and think have real third party candidate? That candidate would clearly only get votes from one side of the spectrum.

Dumb idea is dumb.

Preservation of analysis.

On topic, I think the idea is flawed, but I do think the smaller parties need more push and conventions and such. I wonder where they could find money for such things...

 

[airdata]

It's pointless.

The broken system is in effect and too many people think it works, at least good enough. We'll see as much change w\ this as we did w\ Obama.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Some of the third parties hate each other as much as they to the Rs and Ds, they could never cooperate to do this. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy

 

[Texashiker]

This would reduce the splitting of their votes into all kinds of candidates, a tiny bit here and there.

How about people stop voting for the bug 2 parties, and stop splitting the vote between the rest of the parties?

As far as I am concerned, voting democrat or republican is not an option.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's a slippery slope, once there is 3 then whats stopping from 4 or 5 or 6... multiparty sucks balls... its disastrous...

The opposite is true. Two party sucks in every way, and is a foil to democracy and representation. They have (and will continue to have) ruined absolutely every facet of life. You cannot have a representative government without at least 5-9 parties (providing you have parties at all).

Everything people fear and loathe about multiple parties is nothing but selfishness and a desire to rule over others. People are vehemently invested in certain political theories and want them as the lone basis of government. Doing so abuses those of other political theories. That's why we have compromise. Of course, compromise is inefficient and inequitable. The answer is therefore to split into ideologically homogeneous units that can more accurately and directly represent individual beliefs. At that point multiple parties (which are still necessary for representation) stop being such a big deal.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Shrug. I'll defer to your experience. I did some studying on two party vs. multiparty systems for a poli sci class awhile back. Concluded that they were different in name, not substance.

You either have two major parties which either absorb third parties or adopt parts of their platforms to satisfy their complaints, or you have multiple viable parties which once elected forge alliances that recreate the dualism so often complained about in the US.

What country, incidentally, did you emigrate from?

You're wrong in one regard. It doesn't form PERMANENT dualism, it forms ISSUE dualism based on underlying ideological principles. The alliances only exist for each individual issue, which is how it's supposed to be.

It allows parties to be true to their philosophy rather than forced into permanent coalition against the will of the people.

 

[DesiPower]

Shrug. I'll defer to your experience. I did some studying on two party vs. multiparty systems for a poli sci class awhile back. Concluded that they were different in name, not substance.

You either have two major parties which either absorb third parties or adopt parts of their platforms to satisfy their complaints, or you have multiple viable parties which once elected forge alliances that recreate the dualism so often complained about in the US.

What country, incidentally, did you emigrate from?

I come from India and every few months some party will threaten to leave the coalitions and gain some favor or get money and then sit quietly, then someone else will do the same. Its just another way to make money for them. A lot of time and energy of the main party is simply wasted in keeping the coalitions intact

 

[PrinceofWands]

I come from India and every few months some party will threaten to leave the coalitions and gain some favor or get money and then sit quietly, then someone else will do the same. Its just another way to make money for them. A lot of time and energy of the main party is simply wasted in keeping the coalitions intact

That's nothing different than the fund-raising and political popularity antics of a two-party system. It's an inherent problem in PARTIES, not multiple party systems.

Actually, I'd go even further and say it's just plain politics. An influential representative wants a special perk for his constituents and holds out the vote until a backroom deal profits him. Where's the difference?

 

[Nebor]

Wow, PrinceofWands seems to really like the way the Europeans handle politics, with multiple parties.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wow, PrinceofWands seems to really like the way the Europeans handle politics, with multiple parties.

Don't infer anything beyond mere party status (well, and a deep hatred of 'first past the post'). There is NO question that fewer parties create an unrepresentative government. That's just cold hard fact. Now, rather you LIKE that or not is up to the individual.

Our government framework was new and functional in the 18th century. Not so any more. There have been advancements and we need to get with the times or be left behind. Read Rosenstone, Norris, Flannigan, Zingale, etc. I can suggest a few dozen works looking at comparative government systems that explain the situation fully.

 

[Nebor]

Don't infer anything beyond mere party status (well, and a deep hatred of 'first past the post'). There is NO question that fewer parties create an unrepresentative government. That's just cold hard fact. Now, rather you LIKE that or not is up to the individual.

Our government framework was new and functional in the 18th century. Not so any more. There have been advancements and we need to get with the times or be left behind.

I've often said that the constitution is a living document. The time for placing individual rights and liberties as paramount in our society has passed. Obviously our democracy is broken beyond repair and we're in need of something better.