America needs a third option

Does America need a third strong political party?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Most Americans have been voting for either the Democratic or the Republican party for ages. Isn’t it high time that young Americans started rethinking they way things are in America instead of just following in the footprints of their parents. I am not an American, but if I were one, I wouldn’t vote for either party since I believe in the sanctity of human life. Republicans do not respect the sanctity of human lives on battlefields (the war itself and collateral damage) neither do democrats respect it in the wombs of women. America has become a Babylon.

This is only one issue. There are many others but this alone is enough reason not to vote for either party.


:astonished: :astonished:

America has a third option. His name is Ralph Nader.

Want to try for a fourth?

I know about that bloke. He is much more intelligent than either of the present candidates, especially the incumbent and he has achieved a lot. How much support does he have, though?

Many Americans want to vote for someone other than Democrat or Republican; there are at least a hundred other parties, but we know if we vote for them we are weakening the ‘lesser of two evils.’ In U.S. history third parties have become majority parties (anyone vote for the Whigs?). But Bush won because some Dem’s voted for Nader, and people are afraid of this happening again. Anyway, for all the U.S.-bashers, the American system has worked well for its over 200 year history, with no coups d’etat, revolutions or new constitutions. There are other developed countries that are much more basketcase than the U.S. (ever read about Italian or Greek politics, and let’s remember that Le Pen could never win in the U.S.). But, if Bush wins this time, I really am not tempted to go back.

Er . . . what do you call 1861-1865?

Ever? Promise?? Can you take Alec Baldwin with you???

I agree that the US has a generally good voting system. It just surprises me to think that even though the US has such a diverse population, only two parties seem to ever be big enough to make a difference. I am not a US-basher, by the way. It saddens me to think that people living in the most powerful country in the world do not always appreciate the benefits they have and do not make the impact that they could as a country (not individuals.) There are many individuals who sacrifice their comfort to do just that, and many a soldier has died believing in the cause they fought for. But presently many people do not see America as a liberator, but as a self-serving war machine. Many who used to feel America was the ideal country and defender of human rights, now feel disgusted at the present state of affairs. I do hope America will not be viewed in this way in future. The tide is turning China is becoming a bigger force to be reckoned with. The structure of the United Nations may change soon to share power in a fairer way. Soon, America will have to deserve the respect it wants instead of using it’s big stick too much. The only power that is long-lasting is legitimate power, not based on coercion (deception and force). Read The Power Principle by Blaine Lee.

Er . . . what do you call 1861-1865?

Was that a case of the system breaking down, or an instance where people decided to resolve a problem outside of the system?

we have more than 2 parties. but all the other parties have such unrealistic platforms they’re unelectable to national office.

let me ask you a question, how many parties exist in great britain which actually have a chance of getting elected to leadership? i believe at the moment the answer is one.

just because you have more people willing to vote for extremist parties in europe does not mean that the political landscape there is any less dominated by a tiny number of entrenched establishment parties.

ps: nader is a tool. he is an isolationist and he hates free trade. is that REALLY the kind of president you want the us to have?

it’s funny. some of my first impressions of europe were seeing the massive anti-us demonstrations in europe during the early 80’s when i was a kid. having foreigners march down their streets shouting anti-us slogans isn’t really such a new thing…

The Civil War was a revolution on a regional scale, not an attempt to overthrow the government but rather a quest for autonomy. As for America bashing, there is some legitimacy but there is also just a long tradition of it. I remember seeing anti-American pamphlets even though no one really seemed to know why there was anti-Americanism. The French are anti-American because they feel they’re still an empire, the British are also miffed at not being a superpower. The usual attack is that the U.S. ‘has no culture,’ which is an impossibility. Obviously Americans have a strong culture, and it is usually a ridiculous stereotype of it that pisses others off (i.e. fast food, self-confidence, directness, selfishness, etc.). Rejecting an entire culture and being excessivley nationalistic betray a weak ego.

[quote=“Dr_Zoidberg”]America has a third option. His name is Ralph Nader.

Want to try for a fourth?[/quote]
He wasn’t on my ballot. I only had two. (choices not ballots)

[quote=“Richardm”][quote=“Dr_Zoidberg”]America has a third option. His name is Ralph Nader.

Want to try for a fourth?[/quote]
He wasn’t on my ballot. I only had two. (choices not ballots)[/quote]

6 choices for pres on my ballot. no nader, but there’s a place to write in anyone you want. :slight_smile:

It is not the lack of parties that is the real problem, but the way that the Electoral College voting system can distort the final outcome.

In 2000 the popular vote went i believe to Gore but Bush ended up as President, this does not seem right in principle. Just because a candidate obtains a small majority in one states vote should he gain ALL of the EC votes.

The winner should be the one that reflects the choice of the people.

Which should answer your question about the need (or certainly the desire) for a third party. No.

There is another reason why it is a bad idea. A two party system allows for a relatively clean and easy change of government. Don’t like the current lot? Kick 'em out and get the opposition in.

But in a multi party system, small parties and special interest parties get a distortionate amount of power. EVERY decision comes down to horse-trading to an extent that makes the prsent situation look like paradise. under these circumstances, it is very hard to change the government. don’t like the current lot? Vote for - well who precisely? The same mix of parties will get elected. Slightly different proportions, perhaps… but still the same amount of horse trading and capitulation to the same special interests and issues to get stuff done.

Multi-party systems (i.e., more than two) can lead to permanent gridlock and an ossified political system.

I’m not a fan.

Ross Perot was the last third-party candidate with a real chance … until he started the nuttiness about the Republicans supposedly trying to “disrupt” his daughter’s wedding. He still got about 19% of the vote in 1992, but his crankiness about dropping out of the race and popping back really ended his chances.

There might be six candidates on the ballot, but in reality only two options. America needs at least one other party that has a real chance of winning in an election.