• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The US needs at least one other major political party

UglyCasanova

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Would you agree or disagree? Or maybe better yet having ZERO political parties. Perhaps Trumps gutting of the GOP results in a viable third party - especially if he doesn't get the nomination - but who knows what that would look like.

I think there are plenty of people that fall somewhere in the center on political issues who dont feel represented by Democrats or Republicans. Both parties lean too far one way or the other, leaving moderates with little voice.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Would you agree or disagree? Or maybe better yet having ZERO political parties. Perhaps Trumps gutting of the GOP results in a viable third party - especially if he doesn't get the nomination - but who knows what that would look like.

I think there are plenty of people that fall somewhere in the center on political issues who dont feel represented by Democrats or Republicans. Both parties lean too far one way or the other, leaving moderates with little voice.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US really needs a party that is at least a little bit left of center.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Yeah, sounds great. Except then you wind up with a president that 66% of the populace voted against.
Click to expand...


I see what you are saying, but how to other countries address this? I know that many European nations have several smaller parties rather than two dominating ones.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Yeah, sounds great. Except then you wind up with a president that 66% of the populace voted against.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's exactly a problem. Almost 60% of the votes were against Bill Clinton in 1992 yet no one is saying his victory is illegitimate. You are still the candidate that got the most votes. Besides since turnout varies so much even if someone won in a landslide you couldn't say the candidate necessarily represents the electorate.

And we definitely should have a third party. Especially with both the democrats and republicans going into closed primaries where you have to register to vote in some instances 9 months before the primary, even before anyone has any idea who the front-runners of either party is going to be, you are getting a more and more restricted system that's blocking millions of people from voting--sometimes in a single state alone, like New York this primary season.
 
Last edited:
UglyCasanova said:
I see what you are saying, but how to other countries address this? I know that many European nations have several smaller parties rather than two dominating ones.
Click to expand...

those are mostly parliamentary systems where the members of the winning party select the prime minister.
 
UglyCasanova said:
I see what you are saying, but how to other countries address this? I know that many European nations have several smaller parties rather than two dominating ones.
Click to expand...

countries with parliaments vote parties into seats in parliament, so you end up with 30, 20, 15, 10 splits and such. The party then elects the PM.

when no party gains enough seats for a majority, some parties end up forming a coalition. In the end...it can end up being more of a two party system as coalitions often form to block out the low number votes of the nutso people, or even 3 lower-voted parties get together to block the majority-elected party (because sometimes the people are, indeed, fucking nuts).
 
alcoholbob said:
And we definitely should have a third party. Especially with both the democrats and republicans going into closed primaries where you have to register to vote in some instances 9 months before the primary, even before anyone has any idea who the front-runners of either party is going to be, you are getting a more and more restricted system that's blocking millions of people from voting--sometimes in a single state alone, like New York this primary season.
Click to expand...
The real question "independents" should be asking themselves in NY is: "why would you not register for the Democratic or Republican party?" It explicitly says on the voter registration form that you have to register as a party member in order to vote in their primary elections. What do you gain by being "unaffiliated"? Plus, the deadline people are complaining about was for changing parties, not new registrations, and it's been around for quite some time. Could it be moved up? Sure. But I don't see these people as being truly disenfranchised. This was a primary election - an event for party members to nominate a candidate. Why should non-party members get a say in who a party nominates? Unaffiliated voters can still make their choice in the general election.
 
michal1980 said:
no.

Just look at all the support Bernie is getting.
Click to expand...

seriously, you are fucking dumb.

like, how did you graduate the 3rd grade, dumb. You do fascinate me, though. It's interesting that they let you out of your box in Idaho to type on your computer.

It's more perplexing how you manage to type, considering how dumb you are.
 
zinfamous said:
seriously, you are fucking dumb.

like, how did you graduate the 3rd grade, dumb. You do fascinate me, though. It's interesting that they let you out of your box in Idaho to type on your computer.

It's more perplexing how you manage to type, considering how dumb you are.
Click to expand...

if he was dumb, that would be admitting he has at least some functioning brain cells. his post are amusing to me for their stupidity.
 
All y'all Smuggin up this thread here.

Even the Democrats deserve an alternative Party. Both parties are too focused on maintaining the Status Quo, meaning they want that sweet money flowing in from the Corps.

If you have more than 2 Presidential Candidates you probably should have Runoff elections if none get >50%.
 
IMO the USA needs several revisions to the election systems first. As things work right now it'd be almost impossible for a third party to become viable, at least not without one of the two major parties first losing most of their support.

I don't really know how I feel about more parties either. I'd rather see more independents who aren't forming a broad coalition amongst other politicians that they eventually become beholden to.
 
The UK has had >2 political parties for ages, believe me, on its own that idea does not help.

Problem #1 - many political parties engage in this concept of "I cannot possibly vote for something that an opposing party came up with", which means you have to have a governing party with an easily overpowering majority, which also means that you end up with whatever they say goes. In the UK there's also this concept of whips, people appointed to ensure that everyone in their party votes the way they're supposed to. IMO, file under "not really democracy". All in all, it encourages politicians to act like herd animals and discourages ideal leadership (ie. people who know how to lead, compromise and serve the people by picking and choosing the time to lead and the time to listen).

Problem #2 - people are stupid and engage in this thing called "tactical voting". So if party A had say 40% of the vote, party B had 30% of the vote, party C had 20% and fringe parties had the rest, loads of people who think that party C aligns with their preferences won't vote for them because they don't think party C will win the election, so therefore they vote for a party that they didn't want to vote for because they didn't want some other party to gain power, while forgetting the fact that if people just voted for the party they wanted, that party would have more seats in parliament/whatever and therefore would have more power even if they didn't win the election, and with tactical voting, unless the "tactical vote" logic was completely wrong, party C will never win the election. I think a lot of people also confuse tactical voting with "I'd like to vote for the winning team".

IMO politics is another word for "bullshit power plays".
 
Last edited:
Just adding parties doesn't help if you don't change the system. Get rid of 'winning states' and instead just count the total number of votes. Have the option of several parties working together to form a government instead. It's not an ideal situation either, but it's better than risking some fascist like Trump becoming the president.

And regarding the Democracts being 'left', they are Centrist right or Liberal right at best. Sanders indeed has some 'leftist' ideas, but he doesn't have more than 20 percent of the Democrats behind him probably. The old Republicans are right-wing conservatives, and the Tea Party is the US version of Putin, ISIS or the current Israeli government. So basically a group of fascists that are a danger to the world.
 
mikeymikec said:
The UK has had >2 political parties for ages, believe me, on its own that idea does not help.

Problem #1 - many political parties engage in this concept of "I cannot possibly vote for something that an opposing party came up with", which means you have to have a governing party with an easily overpowering majority, which also means that you end up with whatever they say goes. In the UK there's also this concept of whips, people appointed to ensure that everyone in their party votes the way they're supposed to. IMO, file under "not really democracy". All in all, it encourages politicians to act like herd animals and discourages ideal leadership (ie. people who know how to lead, compromise and serve the people by picking and choosing the time to lead and the time to listen).


IMO politics is another word for "bullshit power plays".
Click to expand...


In reference to the bolded sentence....the U.S. also has whips in Congress leadership, to ensure what you described, getting party members to vote along party lines.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Yeah, sounds great. Except then you wind up with a president that 66% of the populace voted against.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be that way. That's what instant runoff voting is for.

Our system functionally mandates two major parties by design. It's one of the things the founders screwed up in the constitution. Until you get around 50.1% of the vote getting 100% of the representation we will have two parties.

Hence, instant runoff!
 
We have a one party system now it's called blow money out your home sick ass party. We need a common sense party that would make a two party system. So take the good out of the D, R & I and make one solid party.
 
cbrunny said:
LOL American politics is nowhere near centre, much less left of it. Even the Dems are more conservative than Canada's actual Conservative party.


If you want change, Parliament.
Click to expand...

Why do you retards only look at economics? We have a shit-ton of social/cultural Marxists in the US gov't, the regressive Left is growing by leaps and bounds. Hell, our universities are practically useless now, concerned only with social justice and activism, at the expense of basic education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top