RE: Third Party Movements (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


philosophy -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/25/2006 4:01:08 PM)

Archer and WyrdRich........thanks for the clarification....it actually makes sense now :)




juliaoceania -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/25/2006 4:38:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

The problem with third parties is that they tend to be made up of people who are unwilling to do the hard work it takes to create a party.  You have to build candidates with experience by getting them elected to local office first.  The Libertarians have started working on that but that goofy party is never going to go anywhere because the minute they get anywhere their internal divisions will tear them apart.

The Greens have a slim chance as some of their ideas would actually improve things and they are also starting to work at the ground level but it is a long slow process and Americans are not a patient people.


I would say that the Greens would be served to work both at the local, state, and national levels in states that they can make headway in. I have considered the Greens and working on local elections with them if I get the chance... especially when running against neoconservative democrats like Jane Harmon




Padriag -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 2:33:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I was wondering how many people belong to another political party in the USA besides the main two? If so, which one?

I'm not registered with any political party.  I vote for whatever candidate I feel is best qualified regardless of their political party affiliation.  Generally, I dislike the whole concept of political parties and voting blocks... I think they're both bad for a democracy.

quote:

  In some places you have to register as independent or as not politically affilitated, I was wondering if some of us are of this persuasion. I am not a member of a political party, although I was a Democrat for a couple of years after election 2000 I realised that it did not represent my interests shortly after and switched back to being not politically affiliated.

Officially, on my voting registration I'm also listed as an independant.

quote:

I was wondering if those who are members of a third party get tired of partisans of the main parties trying to box them into one of them... like either you are black or white and there is no room for variation. I know democrats want nothing to do with my political ideology, and even though republicans try to force that box on to me, I just do not fit there. Or I have been called a "vote waster" as though either party is owed a vote from me or anyone else for that matter...

I don't fit into the ideology of any of the parties and like you I've been called a vote waster and worse... I've even faced that attitude from individuals here at CM.

quote:

I was just wondering how others feel about partisan identification, and if you do belong to a third party, how do you think that a third party can make headway in this system?

I dislike the partisan "war" that has emerged in this country.  It saddens me that so many seem to identify as Democrat or Republican first and as American's second.  I despise the whole "red state vs blue state" thing, which is at best an oversimplistic view of states and at worst a gross over-generalization based on a media gimick.  The whole "either / or" thinking is not good for this country.

In my opinion, for third parties to make some real headway in this country they have some serious obstacles to overcome.  Some of them will mean changing laws.  For example, if you run for president you are currently required to get a certain number of signatures to petitions in each state to do so.  In those states where you do not get enough signatures, your name will not appear on the ballot in that state.  This is ludicrous for a presidential election.  The people who most benefit from such a law are the Republican and Democratic parties, who are the only major parties able to guarantee compliance for their candidates.  In effect, they have locked out third party presidential candidates.  Likewise the two major parties have worked together to keep third party candidates out of the "official" presidential debates.  Presently these two parties control the debates and who is allowed to participate in them, most third party candidates are not only barred from participating, they are even barred from attending the debate!  This is not what our founding fathers had in mind for our political system.

Ross Perot was an exception to much of this, largely because he had the money to make himself an exception.  Right now the Democratic and Republican parties have a huge financial advantage over anyone else who might run for office simply because of their "war chest".  It creates a situation that makes third party or independant candidates lives incredibly difficult.

But the biggest obstacle of them all is the American people, who, for too long have trapped themselves in to thinking they must vote for "the lesser of two evils" instead of honestly voting their conscience.  An American people who have been suckered into thinking that monolithic political machines, whether the Democrats or Republicans, either somehow represents their individual needs and interest... or in fact even really cares.  The American people have been duped into believing that career politicians have any higher interest other than maintaining their own lucrative political careers... or that the good of the people even ranks a close second to that political self interest.  In short, the biggest obstacle to third parties and independants is the one obstacle with the real power to change things... the American people themselves.

It strikes me as bizarre that the American people would ever accept the notion of voting for "the lesser of two evils"... that is like saying "would you like the moldy bread or the slightly less moldy bread"... neither actually, I'd like some fresh bread thank you.  Yet every year many Americans vote with exactly that mentality... they vote for candidate X, not because they genuinely believe that person is the best choice, but because they think X is less bad than candidate Z.  Its insane when you stop to really think about it... but it part of the big lie Democrats and Republicans have jointly sold to Americans for years because it keeps them in power... locks out the competition.

It also strikes me as arrogant and un-American to hear either Republicans or Democrats talking about "taking back" seats in Congress, the Senate or the White House.  Take them back?  When did they ever belong to the political parties I ask?  It shows their arrogance and how they really think.  Those seats do not belong to any political party.  They belong to Americans... they belong to you.  Those politicians, those representatives sit in those seats only by your permission, you the American people... and its high time you reminded them of that.  They work for you folks, and they have very much forgotten that.

It is very wrong that these politicians are treated to an assortment of special privileges, immunity to laws that we the people are not.  Its wrong that while they muddle about with Social Security which we the people pay for, they pay not one dime into it but are guaranteed full benefits for life (at the highest rate no less).  And why does a politician who rides in a chauffered limosine, has Secret Service protection, and is provided private parking at government buildings... why do they need to be immune to something as mundane as parking tickets?  The answer is they don't, but they give themselves these benefits because they've set themselves up as the new aristocracy.. the new ruling class.  The best decription of the President I have ever heard came from a movie and it went something like this,"Do you know who the president is?  He's just a bum... just another bum."  And its true in a way... the president isn't really special, he (or perhaps one day she) is just an American, no better than you or I.  So why do we treat them, or allow them to treat themselves, as though they were some sort of royalty?

American has a lot of thinking to do, and I sincerely hope they do.  But more than that, Americans need to do some remembering that it supposed to be government of the people, for they people and by the people... and there's really not a lot of room in that for megalithic politcal parties, or politicians who forget they're just another bum.

To borrow from John Lennon... just imagine... if Americans in large numbers simply stopped registering as Republican or Democrat... just that.  Imagine further, if you will, that Americans, in large numbers, stopped supporting just one political party.  Indeed, why not support two or three... or four.  Why not support the candidates you like, you individually, you as a person voicing your opinion rather than silently being a drone for some massive political machine most interested in maintaining its own power and "taking back" what it thinks is its territory.  Just imagine Americans taking back America... not for any political party or even any particular candidate.... but for Americans... for all of us bums.

Just imagine...




popeye1250 -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 5:41:10 AM)

Padriag, well said.
As well as having a seperation of church and state we need to have a seperation of big business and state as well.




StrongButKind -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 7:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

ok.......how does voter registration serve the republic then? What purpose does it serve?


To determine in which primary you are allowed to vote. Some states let you not register, but just take whatever ballot you want at the time (though that clearly leads to crossover voting). You do not have to choose a party to vote in general elections (though you might be asked and have to choose none, other, whatever).




juliaoceania -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 7:35:43 AM)

quote:

It also strikes me as arrogant and un-American to hear either Republicans or Democrats talking about "taking back" seats in Congress, the Senate or the White House.  Take them back?  When did they ever belong to the political parties I ask?  It shows their arrogance and how they really think.  Those seats do not belong to any political party.  They belong to Americans... they belong to you.  Those politicians, those representatives sit in those seats only by your permission, you the American people... and its high time you reminded them of that.  They work for you folks, and they have very much forgotten that
.

I have had this thought cross my mind, when I used to talk about this with others they would tend to get bent out of shape and rationalize their voting choice with all the defense mechanisms you mention. One of my chat friends has a  radio show on the internet that he does... loves to tell people it is their money, their government, and they need to demand to take it back.. I love listening to him! Most people do not want to be responsible for what this government does, and who can blame them?

quote:

To borrow from John Lennon... just imagine... if Americans in large numbers simply stopped registering as Republican or Democrat... just that.  Imagine further, if you will, that Americans, in large numbers, stopped supporting just one political party.  Indeed, why not support two or three... or four.  Why not support the candidates you like, you individually, you as a person voicing your opinion rather than silently being a drone for some massive political machine most interested in maintaining its own power and "taking back" what it thinks is its territory.  Just imagine Americans taking back America... not for any political party or even any particular candidate.... but for Americans... for all of us bums.



I do imagine, but part of imagining means working too, which I need to start doing again. My former dominant was a peace activist hippie (real one, he is going to be 57 in a couple of weeks...lol) And he always said something that would give me drive to try to do better in this world, and that was this simple phrase "Each one teach one".  It is not a concept he invented of course, but it is a powerful one.




Padriag -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 10:00:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Padriag, well said.
As well as having a seperation of church and state we need to have a seperation of big business and state as well.

True.  Here's a concept of campaign finance reform.

1) No corporate entity may contribute to any political campaign funds.
2) Private individuals may contribute, to a limit of X dollars per person.

X is a graduated scale.  If you contribute to a presidential candidate's fund it might go as high as $10,000 for example... but for a mayoral candidate might be limited to $100.  The reason being that it cost more to run for president than it does for mayor.  The limit helps level the playing field further so that someone like Bill Gates, just for example, can't "buy" an election with a $100 million donation.

Wouldn't be a perfect system and it could be gotten around.  But it would certainly go a long way to leveling things again.




pahunkboy -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 10:40:01 AM)

im not registerred to any party. i can and have split my ticket- and likely will do so again. i probaly lean left- but there are some issues that are so obvious....




Archer -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 12:11:29 PM)

Problem that arrises with tht limitation Padriag is that it does nothing to prevent a Ross Perot type from buying the office and not having anyone but another multi millionaire from nning against him with a chance.

Unless you are going to limit the candidates themselves from spending more than the donation limit for an individual.




jesskitty -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 3:13:54 PM)

i consider myself to be only a libreal. i don't like the democrats and i don't like the republicans..i don't know much about third parties so i don't associate myself with one. my problem with voting third party in national elections such as the presidency is that to me it seems like it's obvious the third party vote won't work and to me it is like giving a vote to the republicans which is a party that shares none of my beliefs. if anything i would want the person in power or the party in power to at least share some beliefs i have than none.

on the side, i've looked up kinky friedman and where he stands on the issues. partly because over at my campus it seems like he is the pied piper to all or a big amount of students here. personally i don't see the hype, i don't like what he has to say for the most part, and it seems like most of his stuff is to much joking, and to little actual ideas and most of it is still in the brainstorming stage. for example he states that he doesn't like the taks test but he doesn't come up with any alternative thought to how he is going to fix it. *shrugs* if someone can show me what the hype about kinky is i'll vote for him(in a sarcastically beting sense of course).




popeye1250 -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 3:40:07 PM)

Jesskitty, check out The Constitution Party online.
I vote straight Constitution Party and if there's no Const.Pty. candidate, I leave that space blank.
I don't like the Democrats or Republicans either! It's just the same old B.S. with those two!




sissifytoserve -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 3:56:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


I vote straight Constitution Party and if there's no Const.Pty. candidate, I leave that space blank.
I don't like the Democrats or Republicans either! It's just the same old B.S. with those two!


Ditto...


Would you like corruption...or ULTRA corruption?

They call that a "choice".





pahunkboy -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 4:08:56 PM)

nice post Padriag,

lol- moldy or slightly moldy. LOL




pahunkboy -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 4:13:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Jesskitty, check out The Constitution Party online.
I vote straight Constitution Party and if there's no Const.Pty. candidate, I leave that space blank.
I don't like the Democrats or Republicans either! It's just the same old B.S. with those two!


hi popeye.

i read their platform. [it isnt for me] in general i dont care for any 3rd party. it is often a waste of a vote.

if i had to pick one- tho- the green party looked good locally.

i dont like to check a box that i dont mean. i did not want to vote for a local judge- yet- no one ran agains him. so i aksed if my ballot was void if i made no choice. they said no. so- i wasnt going to give him the satifaction of a "vote".





juliaoceania -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 6:04:03 PM)

I believe that elections should be publically funded, that air time should be provided for issues and candidates to state their positions, and that there be no political advertising.,.. but the media would not want that messsage out there, they make a lot of money off of our election system




jesskitty -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 9:21:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Jesskitty, check out The Constitution Party online.
I vote straight Constitution Party and if there's no Const.Pty. candidate, I leave that space blank.
I don't like the Democrats or Republicans either! It's just the same old B.S. with those two!

thanks popeye, i did check it out but it didn't do much for me. that's not the party for me but thanks about informing me because as stated before all i really know about thrid parties is that there is a socialist party and a green party and i don't know any of their real issues besides green being for nature.




UtopianRanger -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/26/2006 11:19:30 PM)

quote:

I was wondering how many people belong to another political party in the USA besides the main two? If so, which one? In some places you have to register as independent or as not politically affilitated, I was wondering if some of us are of this persuasion. I am not a member of a political party, although I was a Democrat for a couple of years after election 2000 I realised that it did not represent my interests shortly after and switched back to being not politically affiliated.
 

Hi Julia…..   Fiscal conservative here….. with a libertarian outlook on many of the social issues.  

I feel pretty much like the framers did – I don’t believe that government is remotely the answer to ills / societal problems.  

Outside of a small military, a few cops, the dept of transportation and few health and regulatory agencies, I’d skeltonize if not dismantle the rest of the federal goverment and handback enormous power to the states.   

Yes…. I’d love to see a viable third party come into play……but I’ll take a different line than most others and tell you that I don’t necessarily think it’s the parties that are the problem as much as it is the hierocracies running the both of them. Contrary to popular belief…..there was a day when the democrats were the workingman’s party and the Republican Party was one devout in strong, conservative fiscal policy and limited government. 

 I think Padriag’s post sums up a few of the roadblocks that are in the way in order for transparency and vital change to take place.  

Limit ‘’influence peddling’’ on both sides of the fence by strictly regulating / limiting the size of campaign contributions by corporate entities and individuals. This would force the candidates to take a more grass roots approach instead of concentrating on the television /media    

*  Make it a policy with a signed contract that all retired and defeated politicians must permanently be retired : Meaning they can’t come back as non-elected burrecrats, lobbyists, foreign advisors / agents or part of the board member/ hierarchy tied to defense contractors / any part of the military industrial complex. 

* Open the date process to all candidates.... not just the ones the media or both parties deem viable.

* Remember…..  most politicians do more damage to the country after their out of office.    
I also agree with Padriag’s assessment regards two other points :    

*Why are these politicians SO revered and treated like royalty? Are they really that important?  

*Why have we created these huge agencies like the NSA, DIA Secret service and Capitol police at such exorbitant  levels of expense to protect the likes of the Gores, the Bush family , the Clintons, Rumsfeld , Hasstert, Pelosi, Rumsfeld etc , etc when we don’t even provide the Marines with adequate body amour?  

*Are any of those people really that important that the loss of one or all of them justifies such intricate protection at such excessive expense?    

And yes… I , too, and miffed about the whole ‘’lesser of two evils’’ phony paradigm. I think it’s much more a case of too many simps watching too many talking heads falling prey to propaganda.[8|]



 - R






BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/27/2006 12:09:47 AM)

The thing is this:  I loved listening to Ralph Nader speak.  I very much identify with his thoughts, and ideals.   I however would not vote for him because not enough people know him or will vote for him.  Indeed voting for him is a vote against the next best thing, a democrat in my opinion.  If in your case, you don't care about the difference between democrats and republicans, than indeed it does not matter for whom you vote.

I understand your right to and should vote your conscience.  My conscience doesn't have the luxury of living with 100% precision based on my beliefs, because that is just not how life works; and for myself, it could become a matter of continuing to breathe and provide for my family or not...  So, based on the fact that there is a difference, even though the difference is too small, I will vote for the person most likely to win, and the one which most closely adheres to the principles by which I live.    I understand democrats have sold out, lost their balls, and have been far too silent in this critical time; but between the two contenders with the ability to win an election, the dems come closest to my ideals, and that is why I am a democrat.
Just my opinion, YMMV.    M




juliaoceania -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/27/2006 8:02:31 AM)

I have to ask if you support kicking dems out that sound like republicans? Lieberman comes to mind, although there are a few others (I am campaigning against Feinstien next time she comes up for reelection)




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Third Party Movements (9/27/2006 6:00:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I have to ask if you support kicking dems out that sound like republicans?
Where did I say I support kicking democrats out?  I generally vote Democrat, but will actually vote for the best man/woman regardless of party, and only if I think he has a reasonable chance of winning (which at this time is mostly democrat vs republican).  If green had a good chance, that is what I would be as it suits my ideology best.   Maybe some day,   M




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125