A realistic third party in the US

Politics US Politics
1

Politics in Washington have gotten to the absolutely ridiculous point of stopping any progress for the country in favor of partisan bickering. I, for one, am sick of it. Most people are probably so ingrained in their political beliefs that they automatically balk at an idea presented by the opposing party without even knowing why. I do it all the time and so do most people I talk to. Here’s the thing though, with the current 2 parties become a toxic plague in the US, I think it’s high time a for a third party that actually controls a large part of the pie as well. This would take a fair share of power away from corporations and lobbyist and put it back in the hands of the people.

How could this be done? By taking an honest look at what the American people, as a whole, really want on each issue - and then compromising where the nation is split, moving forward as one. I don’t think its that hard.

One example: Democrats refuse to cut spending, Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the rich - third party would come up with a compromise that reduces and cuts the out of control pork barrel spending whilst simultaneously raising taxes on the riches 10% of Americans, or (more favorably, even) instating a flat tax across the board whereby everyone gives 18% (or so) of their earning to the government.

If we were to realistically start a third party, where would you want it to stand on the issues?

2

A real, honest-to-goodness progressive party would be something I could support.

EDIT: I’ll add that it should be a party that’s willing to hold its nose and join with the Democrats in a joint effort to destroy the Republican Party once and for all. So the Greens are out.

3

and fuck up the monopolistic racket these two ‘opposing forces’ have been profiting off since 1776?

:roflmao:

4

Haha, Deuce. I know it’s unrealistic, but something needs to change in Washington.

I’m a Democrat, too. I’m also a Christian and a veteran (gasps!)…i know, i know…it’s an odd combination, but I’m sick of the Republicans and their refusal to admit that the big business and the richest American’s shouldn’t have to contribute their share.

I’m not talking about an already existing third party either. Those guys all have something good about them, but they are old and stale and wouldn’t be very likely to pick up steam. What I’m envisioning is someone who has the oratory skills of Obama, crowd-appeal of Stephen Colbert, and someone who has virtually zero indebtedness to lobbyist. I know it seems completely unrealistic, but if there was a way to combine the above three, I think there is a realistic chance of getting that guy elected president, and a bunch of his clones into congress.

It would take an awful lot, though.

5

The Nihilist Party is the one for me.

6

Acutally, maybe both parties would go for it. Get some independent guy in office for the next four years, and then both parties could spend the time working out how to blame him for everything and then have a fresh go at each other from there. Both parties could then be seen to be working together to unite the country and right all the wrongs that neithe of them would have to own up to being responsible for.

7

Frankly, the real issue is that the two party dynamics in the US accurately reflect the polarized nature of the electorate they represent.

8

[quote=“Chris”]A real, honest-to-goodness progressive party would be something I could support.

EDIT: I’ll add that it should be a party that’s willing to hold its nose and join with the Democrats in a joint effort to destroy the Republican Party once and for all. So the Greens are out.[/quote]

LOL, such a party would more likely result in the destruction of the Democrat party.

9

[quote=“jjones217”]Haha, Deuce. I know it’s unrealistic, but something needs to change in Washington.

I’m a Democrat, too. I’m also a Christian and a veteran (gasps!)…I know, I know…it’s an odd combination, but I’m sick of the Republicans and their refusal to admit that the big business and the richest American’s shouldn’t have to contribute their share.

I’m not talking about an already existing third party either. Those guys all have something good about them, but they are old and stale and wouldn’t be very likely to pick up steam. What I’m envisioning is someone who has the oratory skills of Obama, crowd-appeal of Stephen Colbert, and someone who has virtually zero indebtedness to lobbyist. I know it seems completely unrealistic, but if there was a way to combine the above three, I think there is a realistic chance of getting that guy elected president, and a bunch of his clones into congress.

It would take an awful lot, though.[/quote]

I think a lot of people want this, but I also think if the traditional 2 party system fails, the US could spiral into Coalitionville (right wing splitting into Libertarians, Tea Baggers, Christian Fundamentalists etc…left wing splitting into liberals, socialists, greens etc…) and it would be a complete mess.

The two party system is a racket and it is flawed, but the US got to the top running this offense and there is no need to go changing it now.

Americans are kind of lucky to have lived in their ‘deMOCKracy’ for all these years. Look at what it has done for business interests and geopolitics. So your vote means shit and your ‘democracy’ is a laughing joke, who cares? you are fat cats who are only getting fatter. Yeah yeah, there is that silly little debt problem, but the US still holds the cards and if you guys walk away from the table, everyone loses.

10

Didn’t know there was such a party named the “Democrat” Party. There is a Democratic Party, whose members are known as Democrats.

11

LOL, that’s all you’ve got. Snide remarks about a typo? Although I suppose I shouldn’t jump to conclusions maybe you really don’t know what I meant.

12

Typo? You should realize that the term “Democrat Party” is deliberately and regularly used by Limbaugh et al as a pejorative. If it’s truly a typo, I apologize, but you can understand why one might be doubtful.

13

Typo? You should realize that the term “Democrat Party” is deliberately and regularly used by Limbaugh et al as a pejorative. If it’s truly a typo, I apologize, but you can understand why one might be doubtful.[/quote]

I had no idea, I’ve never listened to a single word Rush Limbaugh has said in my life. Also, my viewership of FOX news is limited to the clips of it that are mocked on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Edit: I also have no idea why ‘Democrat Pary’ would be a pejorative? I’ll have to assume there is some context I’m missing.

14

You think so? I think there are some major issues the two parties get away with at the moment that a minority coalition party could really capitalise on.

For Immigration- Huge potential Latinos/Recent immigrants voting base
This one is the big one, democrats have the vote by default, but they are not doing anything for them.

Ultraconservatives/Palinites/Tea partyists/Populists- Far right of Republican Party

The republican party could hive them off and actually get more votes if the pulled back to the middle, then vote with them according to specific issues/program for government.

What is preventing this happening, is it the fund raising required? Maybe big business are happy with the way things are going now, they won’t fund smaller parties?

15

In all the scenarios you have outlined you are talking about single interest parties. Also what your talking about here is a splintering of the existing parties rather than giving the American people a legitimate 3rd option. It comes down to what the kind of government the American people want. I actually see party politics as being destructive. I’d much rather see a system of individaul representatives who are free to vote in accordance to their own beliefs or those expressed by their constituents rather than having to vote along party lines.

Edit: Also polarization doesn’t mean there are only two issues. It refers to the attitudes of the American people on those issues.

16

Why so touchy, Chris? Here’s what you wrote in another thread:

Do we have a Democrat Hypocrisy thread anywhere? :laughing:

17

You are right especially about immigration, but a party could also have attributes of republican/democrats but me fully focused on immigration reform at the same time, could get a lot of votes. It will never get the majority, but that’s not the point, it will have the leverage from being a coalition partner. It could also be quite fluid in it’s politics as naturally it will not be able to control most of the ‘ministries’ or whatever you call it in the US.
Now some might decry that as blackmailing but that is exactly what big business and lobbyists are getting away with everyday! This method of sharing and flexible government gives significant minorities of people more choice and allows their voice to be heard instead of ignored.

18

It’d be another epic one.

19

Do we have a Democrat Hypocrisy thread anywhere? :laughing:[/quote]
No hypocrisy here. “Repube” is overtly insulting, and not couched in plausible deniability, nor is it subject to accidental use by those who don’t know better…

20

I thought it referred to what happens if you stop shaving down there.