What's new
By:

Please Be The Rise Of A Third Party

I'd like a third party, but libertarians and gary johnson seem less like a serious third party and more like a niche market.
 
b_line said:
I'd like a third party, but libertarians and gary johnson seem less like a serious third party and more like a niche market.
Click to expand...

But right now they are the best chance we have to get one. If they break that mold than it makes it more likely that a new party emerges. It's not so much about the libertarians as it is a third party. They are just the most likely candidate.
 
Stoked said:
But right now they are the best chance we have to get one. If they break that mold than it makes it more likely that a new party emerges. It's not so much about the libertarians as it is a third party. They are just the most likely candidate.
Click to expand...
This.
More choices > less choices imo regardless of who the new candidate is
 
fishonjazz said:
This.
More choices > less choices imo regardless of who the new candidate is
Click to expand...
I doubt Trump could have gotten this far if not for the humongous number of choices when this whole things started. So there's a case where lots of choices actually hurt us. I wish somehow people had been allowed to vote for all of the candidates they liked instead of just one. The result would be that the candidates who have wide appeal would rise to the top no matter who else is running.
 
When I was a teenager I dreamt up and idea that I think would make a multi-party system much more likely.

You get two votes, one for a candidate and one against. So you could vote for whomever you liked the most and then vote against Trump. Every "against" vote cancels out a "for" vote. Boom!
 
I voted third party in the last two presidential elections. I am absolutely done with the shenanigans of the two major parties.
 
There's a reason that third parties have never taken root in this country. The winner take all nature of our electoral system discourages third parties and makes it difficult for them to thrive. A more likely result, which actually has historical precedence, is the demise of one party giving rise to a replacement party. For example, the Federalists and Whigs were once major parties but later fractured and disappeared.

Personally, I'd be pleased if this were the fate of the Republican party, assuming it is replaced by a sane party actually committed to governing as opposed to purity tests and pandering to wingnuts, that offers a grown-up alternative to the Democrats (not grown up relative to Democrats but grown-up relative to the current state of the Republican party).
 
Stoked said:
But right now they are the best chance we have to get one. If they break that mold than it makes it more likely that a new party emerges. It's not so much about the libertarians as it is a third party. They are just the most likely candidate.
Click to expand...

A democratic socialist party seems to be pretty viable. Sanders isn't a democrat, he's just running on their ticket.
 
ElRoach0 said:
A democratic socialist party seems to be pretty viable. Sanders isn't a democrat, he's just running on their ticket.
Click to expand...

Right on. I'd be happy with that party rising up. I'd like to see 4-5 tbh.
 
Me too. But they would have to change the way they elect president.

The whole reason there are two parties right now is because the president is selected by the house if no single candidate wins a simple majority of the electoral college. This basically guarantees that only two parties will succeed.
 
Simply moving to a system that allows the people (popular vote, no majority necessary) would eliminate the two party system pretty quickly.
 
If gary johnson gets over 5% of the popular vote the libertarian party will receive about 10 million in federal grants in 2016 for campaign. As a reference, Johnson has only raised 2.3 mil to this point. He will be on the ballot in 48 states and does not have the money to get on the ballot in Oklahoma and one other state.

Our country has basically stated they don't want any poor people being elected by excluding them from the ballot.

Effing sucks.
 
b_line said:
Simply moving to a system that allows the people (popular vote, no majority necessary) would eliminate the two party system pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. You would have an even more ominous spoiler effect, which is largely why we have a strong 2 party system. Even worse ^that's how you elect a nutjob. Two or more sane people split the sane vote leaving Crazy Mcdouchebag and his fanatics an eay path to office.

I like both ranked choice voting or approval voting. I'd be cool with either. Neither is perfect but I think they are both better than what we've got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRPMJmzBBw
 
b_line said:
Simply moving to a system that allows the people (popular vote, no majority necessary) would eliminate the two party system pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
This seems the obvious way it should be done
 
♪alt13 said:
No it wouldn't. You would have an even more ominous spoiler effect, which is largely why we have a strong 2 party system. Even worse ^that's how you elect a nutjob. Two or more sane people split the sane vote leaving Crazy Mcdouchebag and his fanatics an eay path to office.

I like both ranked choice voting or approval voting. I'd be cool with either. Neither is perfect but I think they are both better than what we've got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRPMJmzBBw
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that it would be a chance to elect a nutjob, but even you said so that a third party nutjob would win. It would be an extremely fractured vote, no more two party success system.
 
♪alt13 said:
No it wouldn't. You would have an even more ominous spoiler effect, which is largely why we have a strong 2 party system. Even worse ^that's how you elect a nutjob. Two or more sane people split the sane vote leaving Crazy Mcdouchebag and his fanatics an eay path to office.

I like both ranked choice voting or approval voting. I'd be cool with either. Neither is perfect but I think they are both better than what we've got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRPMJmzBBw
Click to expand...


As if no nutjobs have come out of the 2-party system. LMFAO.
 
b_line said:
I don't disagree that it would be a chance to elect a nutjob, but even you said so that a third party nutjob would win. It would be an extremely fractured vote, no more two party success system.
Click to expand...

I should have separated the spoiler effect and minority rule a little better. I don't think a 3rd party would win but if they did it probably wouldn't be a desirable one for most people. Most likely voters would recognize that the spoiler effect was even more of an issue than before. That would probably make them less likely to risk a vote on a Perot, Nader, etc. That would strengthen the two party system. If a candidate were successful they would have been approved by even fewer voters than today, that doesn't seem to be preferable either.

I think plurality elections would at best strengthen the 2 party system and at worst be a breeding ground for nationalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top