# How would a third party work?



## QuickSilver (Jan 2, 2015)

So our govenment is loosely set up on majority rules.   Majority has always meant greater then 51%..   If we had a third party.. would it still be required that a party get greater than 51% of a vote?   OR could a candidate win with as little as 34% of the vote.  Do you feel comfortable with that.. I don't..   I think that paves the way for all sorts of minority crazy...   What do you think?


----------



## oakapple (Jan 2, 2015)

We have 3 parties here, plus some 'minor fringe ones'.However, for a lot of years we have had one major party ruling[either Labour or Conservatives.]At the last General Election the Lib Dem party joined with the Conservatives to make a Government, called a coalition, and this seems to have worked.We have a General Election coming up on May 7th, and who knows what will happen then.The consensus of opinion seems to think we will have another coalition of some kind.


----------



## oakapple (Jan 2, 2015)

The difference between your country and mine in this, is that the Civil Servants   [Government Administration] don't change every election time but stay the same.So, they would work for a Labour Minister one day and then after the election would then work in the same dept but for a Conservative Minister. It makes things run smoothly.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 2, 2015)

No, it is not time for a third party. Third-party politicians are just as corruptible as Republicans and Democrats. They may sprout like innocent little flowers from the fertile soil of the Internet, but just like Republicans and Democrats, they will grow up groveling for big campaign donations, letting corporate lobbyists tell them how to vote, and walking through the revolving door to lucrative influence-peddling jobs when they leave office.
It would be better for Republicans and Democrats to try to reform their own parties and the campaign finance system than to indulge in wishful thinking about third parties.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 2, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> No, it is not time for a third party. Third-party politicians are just as corruptible as Republicans and Democrats. They may sprout like innocent little flowers from the fertile soil of the Internet, but just like Republicans and Democrats, they will grow up groveling for big campaign donations, letting corporate lobbyists tell them how to vote, and walking through the revolving door to lucrative influence-peddling jobs when they leave office.
> The problem that has so messed up our political system is the way elections are financed by special interests. Unless we reform the way that powerful special interests can buy elections creating a third party will accomplish nothing but muddy the waters (remember how Nader cost Gore the election).



I agree... overturning Citizen's United and campaign reform is the first step...  I also think a third party is a useless idea.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 2, 2015)

An evenly divided 3 party system would be ideal. With 3 parties a 51% majority ( more in some cases) would still be required to pass legislation or get elected. Currently if one party sponsors a bill the other party will usually oppose it. The party with the majority can pass bills the other party can't. With 3 parties no one party will have a majority so one party can't pass a bill without support from at least one of the other parties. This should lead to better legislation.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 2, 2015)

Three or Ten parties wouldn't matter because the voting/passing rules for congress, the senate and president would remain the same. The only time a third party would come into play would be an election. Then yes 51% to be voted into office or a majority of the votes would be "an" issue.  As long as the laws and procedures remain the same I don't see a problem. The minority or loser is always going to be there. The "majority" would still have to compromise with the minority to get legislation passed anyway. Today in current time many elections are perfunctory at this point. Unfortunately it still comes down to sneaking fine print in a bill, sneaking a late night or weekend vote, the back smoke filled room deal and biased politics.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2015)

Our parliament has benefited from the presence of principled independents and some small parties, not only when they hold the balance of power but also just by being an alternate voice that speaks fearlessly on issues that the big parties try to avoid mentioning.

One party that rose up (and has since expired) had as it's slogan "Keep the bastards honest". They were the Australian Democrats but they paid a heavy price for siding with the government that introduced a goods and services tax, even though through negotiation they softened the effect on low income earners by getting an exemption for unprocessed foods.

We now have a Greens party which is the only one that speaks out for justice for refugees and openly opposes Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. They are slowly making ground and they say they are not there to keep the bastards honest, they want to replace the bastards by winning enough seats to form government.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 3, 2015)

The party system really negates the "51%" rule.

In most of our elections since the war the party in power has not only not had more had 50% of the vote, but they have also had a total vote of less that the party in opposition.

Simply, the Conservatives get 210 seats with small majorities.  Labour get 200 with massive majorities.   Conservatives in power, but Labour with more votes.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 3, 2015)

We solve that problem by having compulsory voting using a preferential system and the electoral boundaries are adjusted by an independent electoral authority. They oversee the election process too. This limits opportunity for gerrymandering and vote rigging.


----------



## Lee (Jan 3, 2015)

Canada has Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Parti Quebecois and Green Party. If a vote results in a minority government then the others can form a partnership to veto the vote on a proposal if they don't agree. If a majority government then majority rules.

And there have been a few times when a member from one party crosses over to the other side.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

Lee said:


> Canada has Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Parti Quebecois and Green Party. If a vote results in a minority government then the others can form a partnership to veto the vote on a proposal if they don't agree. If a majority government then majority rules.
> 
> And there have been a few times when a member from one party crosses over to the other side.



With our system, third party candidates have only gummed up the works..  Americans can't seem to get behind one.. All they have done is syphon votes away from one of the major parties...    If by chance an Independent gets elected to the Senate, they STILL have to choose which party they will caucas with..  Bernie Sanders comes to mind..  He caucases with the Democrats..  

IMO the only way a person with significantly different ideas will have to run either as a Democrat or Republican to even have a chance.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 3, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> With our system, third party candidates have only gummed up the works..  Americans can't seem to get behind one.. All they have done is syphon votes away from one of the major parties...    If by chance an Independent gets elected to the Senate, they STILL have to choose which party they will caucas with..  Bernie Sanders comes to mind..  He caucases with the Democrats..
> 
> IMO the only way a person with significantly different ideas will have to run either as a Democrat or Republican to even have a chance.



That's very true QS. I'm saying it would be a lot better *IF *there were three parties that were more or less equally divided. In other words a whole new system. A true 3 party system.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 3, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> IMO the only way a person with significantly different ideas will have to run either as a Democrat or Republican to even have a chance.



I agree QS, right now a vote for anyone except a Democrat or Republican is a throw-away vote, IMO.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree QS, right now a vote for anyone except a Democrat or Republican is a throw-away vote, IMO.



This is why the Teaparty has aligned themselves with the Republican party rather than forge off on their own..   NOW... the Democrats have their "Progressive" wing led by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Sid (Jan 3, 2015)

I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip. 


     I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.


     Which vote was thrown away?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

Sid said:


> I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.
> 
> 
> I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.
> ...



Yours because it didn't matter to the outcome of the election except to take that vote away from another candidate.    If a libertarian runs.. they generally take that vote away from the Republicans.  If a Green Party runs, that vote is usually siphoned from the Democrat.  Your candidate will not win, but maybe you are enabling a candidate you REALLY hate to win.  

IMO.. NO candidate is 100% perfect.  One can only look at them and determine which one is more closely alligned with your idealogy.


----------



## Sid (Jan 3, 2015)

In The United States Of America the power is supposed to be in the people.  It is not supposed be in the Democrats or Republicans.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

Sid said:


> In The United States Of America the power is supposed to be in the people.  It is not supposed be in the Democrats or Republicans.



A society must find ways to govern itself or anarchy would prevail.   This is how our Founding Fathers set it up..  Don't see it changing unless the entire Constitution is thrown out and we start over.   How do you think that would come about?    You might as well try to work within the system....


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Jan 3, 2015)

We already do.  Now if only more people had the guts to vote for those running (more than one other party and more than one independent in most elections in populous areas anyway) who were neither Repugs or Demos.  It would make a world of difference.  The reason all it does now is syphon votes from one or the other is because most do not have the guts to vote third party or independent because they believe it's a throw-away vote.  They are, in short, well-trained by the two parties to vote against their own interests.

I'm not sure how it would vote if none of the parties were a clear majority.  Is it 51% or is it just the one with the most votes and it two (or more) or too close, then we hold a run-off.

Let's keep in mind that the popular vote doesn't even elect the candidates directly but rather it goes to the electoral college.  A thing that should be done away with in my opinion.  It should be the popular vote.  For all we know, a lot of people are voting 3rd party and independent and the electoral college just takes it upon themselves to translate that into whichever party. 

However, that said, also remember we are not a true democracy -- thank the Founding Fathers -- but a Democratic Republic.  A true democracy, majority rule, would utterly suck.  No one's rights would be protected as the majority could just vote them away.  My grandson would soon be forced to learn to pray in school that's for sure.  His Jewish, Wiccan,  Bhuddist, Hindu and Muslim classmates would also be forced to recite Christian prayer.  This would be a very, very bad thing.  And, no, the schools would not be less violent.  School violence has existed in America's public schools since they began.  In fact, there was at one point a riot between Catholics and Protestants over which version of God should reign supreme:

http://candst.tripod.com/boston3.htm

We really, really, really don't want that!  In a pure democracy, the majority would just ride rough shod over the minority, not just on religion but on anything.  Democratic Republic protecting all our rights rocks!



Dame Warrigal said:


> We solve that problem by having compulsory voting using a preferential system and the electoral boundaries are adjusted by an independent electoral authority. They oversee the election process too. This limits opportunity for gerrymandering and vote rigging.



While, ideally, I think everyone should vote, I'm against compulsory voting simply because that's the very opposite of freedom!



Sid said:


> I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.
> 
> 
> I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.
> ...



Thank you.  Not yours.



QuickSilver said:


> Yours because it didn't matter to the outcome of the election except to take that vote away from another candidate.    If a libertarian runs.. they generally take that vote away from the Republicans.  If a Green Party runs, that vote is usually siphoned from the Democrat.  Your candidate will not win, but maybe you are enabling a candidate you REALLY hate to win.
> 
> IMO.. NO candidate is 100% perfect.  One can only look at them and determine which one is more closely alligned with your idealogy.



No, the only vote thrown away is the vote for someone you didn't really like but picked because they're the lesser of two evils.  Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil.


----------



## Sid (Jan 3, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> A society must find ways to govern itself or anarchy would prevail.   This is how our Founding Fathers set it up..  Don't see it changing unless the entire Constition is thrown out and we start over.   How do you think that would come about?    You might as well try to work within the system....



Well as long as it seems to be a discussion, I have more.

I see no need to throw the Constitution out. Remember provisions were made to amend it, and it has been amended over the years. As to how overthrowing it would come about, I would hope it would be a bloody mess.  By that I mean I hope enough people would feel strong enough about it that we would be willing to die if needed to preserve it.  As for now I will keep going to the ballot box and vote my choice, whether it be Dem Rep or whatever label is tacked on to it. Isn't that working in the system?


 Does the constitution call for Republican or Democrat choices only? Does it call for any political party at all?


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 3, 2015)

Third party will never fly here, its been tried before many times.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

The President and VP... ie the Executive branch is the only election that utilizes the Electoral College.   The Legislative Branch is elected with a 51% majority of the popular vote.  It would mean that a Senator or Representative could be elected with as little as 34% if three parties... OR only 25% if four parties.  This is NOT democratic.. which operates on Majority Rule.  

The Constitution would have to be changed and we would have to adopt a system more like the UK that allows for a minority rule.   A constitutional amendment would require that 2/3 of joint house and Senate vote in favor of the amendment....  THEN 3/4th of the State Legislatures have to vote in favor for it to be ratified.    OR 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to vote for a Constitutional Convention.    Do you foresee ANY of this even within the realm of possibility?

I do not believe there will ever be a way for a viable 3rd party to come into power.  I believe many States have a run-off system.. but to my knowledge, that applies to the Primary election where one candidate MUST reach 50% to be the winner, but to my knowlege, not in the General.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 3, 2015)

The Most Encouraging Thing I see happening lately, is that more and more people are waking up to the FACT that our government is owned and financed by the 1%.  Very few of those in positions of leadership really give a rats behind about what the average person thinks.  They tell us whatever lies are necessary to get elected or re-elected, then go right back to spending most of their time with the Lobbyists on K Street.  With a little luck, eventually, the majority of people will wake up and face this reality, and perhaps, then, we will see some action being taken to reverse this trend.  Term Limits, repealing Citizens United, and a major overhaul of our campaign finance laws will be necessary if any progress towards restoring "Government Of, For, and By the people", is ever going to be made.  Until then, the best we can hope for is that the 1% continue to drop enough crumbs off their tables to keep the country from descending into anarchy.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 3, 2015)

Don M. said:


> The Most Encouraging Thing I see happening lately, is that more and more people are waking up to the FACT that our government is owned and financed by the 1%.  Very few of those in positions of leadership really give a rats behind about what the average person thinks.  They tell us whatever lies are necessary to get elected or re-elected, then go right back to spending most of their time with the Lobbyists on K Street.  With a little luck, eventually, the majority of people will wake up and face this reality, and perhaps, then, we will see some action being taken to reverse this trend.  Term Limits, repealing Citizens United, and a major overhaul of our campaign finance laws will be necessary if any progress towards restoring "Government Of, For, and By the people", is ever going to be made.  Until then, the best we can hope for is that the 1% continue to drop enough crumbs off their tables to keep the country from descending into anarchy.



I absolutely agree..  A third party would do nothing to address what you have outlined.

As it stands now... NO party can be elected without VAST amounts of money... much of this is "dark money" that is given to Super PACS anonymously..  This money pays for TV and radio ads that blanket the airwaves to saturation before elections.   These Ads are less to get someone elected than they are negative and about NOT getting someone elected.   Why does this work so well?   Because the majority of American voters are LAZY and uninformed..  They don't want to bother paying attention to what has been going on in the House and Senate..  They have NO clue about the voting records of the candidates.. they don't listen to debates and they form their opinions based solely on what the special interest groups pay for them to hear in 30 second sound bites..OR how the candidate looks rather on anything of substance..   So how do you change that?  How to you get people to pay attention?


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Jan 3, 2015)

Sid said:


> Well as long as it seems to be a discussion, I have more.
> 
> I see no need to throw the Constitution out. Remember provisions were made to amend it, and it has been amended over the years. As to how overthrowing it would come about, I would hope it would be a bloody mess.  By that I mean I hope enough people would feel strong enough about it that we would be willing to die if needed to preserve it.  As for now I will keep going to the ballot box and vote my choice, whether it be Dem Rep or whatever label is tacked on to it. Isn't that working in the system?
> 
> ...



Exactly.  In fact, if this country were only actually run by the Constitution, it would be a wonderful place to live.  It is not.



Jackie22 said:


> Third party will never fly here, its been tried before many times.



But the reason it fails is because everyone assumes it will and the majority do not have the courage to vote for anything other than a Repug or Demo.



QuickSilver said:


> I absolutely agree..  A third party would do nothing to address what you have outlined.
> 
> As it stands now... NO party can be elected without VAST amounts of money... much of this is "dark money" that is given to Super PACS anonymously..  This money pays for TV and radio ads that blanket the airwaves to saturation before elections.   These Ads are less to get someone elected than they are negative and about NOT getting someone elected.   Why does this work so well?   Because the majority of American voters are LAZY and uninformed..  They don't want to bother paying attention to what has been going on in the House and Senate..  They have NO clue about the voting records of the candidates.. they don't listen to debates and they form their opinions based solely on what the special interest groups pay for them to hear in 30 second sound bites..OR how the candidate looks rather on anything of substance..   So how do you change that?  How to you get people to pay attention?



As he said, people are slowly waking up to it.  Eventually, they'll care enough to stand up to it.  More and more are having the courage to vote 3rd party and independent.  This takes time.  Part of the problem to is often the 3rd party and independent aren't any better.  All too often, they're rich crackpots with the money to run.  What you say about money is true which is why campaign finance reform is needed.  It's kind of a Catch-22.  We need campaign finance reform to break the 2-party stranglehold and we need to break the 2-party stranglehold to get that campaign finance reform.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 4, 2015)

Your vote is your vote. Your vote is NOT the strategist for the Republicon or Demorat parties vote. If one wants to rationalize their vote by saying it would've been thrown away that's their choice. 

The old school old fart redundant same ole stuff parties have fed the public "two party system" for decades. It's in their own self interest from the campaign types to those needing favors. But it's not in the public's best interest


----------



## Josiah (Jan 4, 2015)

Sid said:


> Well as long as it seems to be a discussion, I have more.
> 
> I see no need to throw the Constitution out. Remember provisions were made to amend it, and it has been amended over the years. As to how overthrowing it would come about, I would hope it would be a bloody mess.  By that I mean I hope enough people would feel strong enough about it that we would be willing to die if needed to preserve it.  As for now I will keep going to the ballot box and vote my choice, whether it be Dem Rep or whatever label is tacked on to it. Isn't that working in the system?
> 
> ...


You're right that the Constitution provided a means to modify it. However it's really hard to envision an amendment passing that would significantly change how legislation is passed. I think the monied special interests are happy with having things stay exactly the way they are.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 5, 2015)

Maybe Ralph has little gas left in his tank...  (Sorry, I couldn't resist the gas & tank thing as I always associate him with the Corvair.)


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 8, 2015)

*the myth*



Sid said:


> I am forced to vote for A or B. I don't think either one is worth a flip.
> 
> 
> I vote C because I rally like. I may not have voted a winner but I voted my choice.
> ...



Well put.

When one votes they(the individual) is voting for who they want: their choice their vote. THEIR CHOICE and not placing a vote based on the whims, wishes and/or desires of the old establishment parties perpetuating the myth that this a two party system only. There are three branches of government but "two party system" is spelled out where again?

One's participation in an election should be for themselves. If they want to vote like a robot or trained dog that is their personal choice but not a matter of fact or necessity.

To top it off so what if some one like a communist gets voted into office. There are still three branches of government and/or a system of checks and balances. And procedures that include over riding vetoes no matter how often it is used or not used. The system is designed for differing views and over coming objections.


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

i have proposed this before and not much comment.   I think for on our ballots there should be no mention of party.   All should only get to vote by name awareness.   Back around 1950, plus or minus something, we changed from a party ticket to marking every vote.   I am now saying we should go one more step and take party off the ballot.   Party has changed over the years.   Party of same name is not the same as that name was 100 years ago.  We should always vote for the person and have them represent the people they are supposed to represent, not what some disconnected political party wants.  

There is nothing in our Constitution that says we have to have political parties for anything.   We have representatives for House and Senate by setup districts that we live in and our representatives also speak for.   Nothing wrong with the original setup at all.  Most of this worked fine until in the 1970's and beyond.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Aug 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> i have proposed this before and not much comment.   I think for on our ballots there should be no mention of party.   All should only get to vote by name awareness.   Back around 1950, plus or minus something, we changed from a party ticket to marking every vote.   I am now saying we should go one more step and take party off the ballot.   Party has changed over the years.   Party of same name is not the same as that name was 100 years ago.  We should always vote for the person and have them represent the people they are supposed to represent, not what some disconnected political party wants.
> 
> There is nothing in our Constitution that says we have to have political parties for anything.   We have representatives for House and Senate by setup districts that we live in and our representatives also speak for.   Nothing wrong with the original setup at all.  Most of this worked fine until in the 1970's and beyond.



Bob, I completely agree with you.  Take the "R" or "D" off the ballots.  Let us vote for the person.  Today, too many people will simply mark the "R" or "D" candidate if they haven't taken the time to know who they're voting for.  This would also mean a dissolving of the Pub and Dem parties.  Otherwise, money would flow through those parties to the candidates behind the scenes as pay for future benefits.  

Our local City and School Board elections have always been non-partisan.  The Pub majority in our State felt they were losing too many seats to "liberals".  Legislation this past year will now move the elections to November and make them partisan.  The Pubs feel that folks will now be able to vote party over person... and for entirely too many... that's not a good thing.


----------



## Lara (Aug 8, 2015)

I've alway voted for the person and not the party…just makes sense. Leaving off the R and D from the ballots is a great idea but will never happen.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 8, 2015)

I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.


----------



## NancyNGA (Aug 8, 2015)

I often hear people proudly proclaim they are an Independent and they vote for the "best" person, not the party.   Often these people are not even very political, some probably couldn't tell you who their Congressman is.  I wonder how in the world they decide who is the best person.   With all the nuances involved in votes (e.g., sometimes an "aye" is really a "nay"), and  legislation (e.g., did they really support this or were they backed into a corner), and carefully worded speeches (e.g., it may be what they *don't* say that counts), etc...  They would have to be a full time political junky to really know if they voted for the "best" person, wouldn't they?


----------



## Jackie22 (Aug 8, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.



Yes, I agree.....had some Texas redneck ask me why I was for President Obama once.......I told him it was because I kept up with what was going on in Washington.  I vote straight Democrat, don't ever try to tell me the parties are the same, I know better.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Bob, I completely agree with you.  Take the "R" or "D" off the ballots.  Let us vote for the person.  Today, too many people will simply mark the "R" or "D" candidate if they haven't taken the time to know who they're voting for.  This would also mean a dissolving of the Pub and Dem parties.  Otherwise, money would flow through those parties to the candidates behind the scenes as pay for future benefits.
> 
> ........



I like the idea but the only reason I would keep the party on the ballot would be a form a disclosure ie who butters their bread with how much. And behind the scenes dark money would be a problem because the lobbyists would still know who to go to. Campaign Finance reform would have to accompany an idea like this.

Nancy also has a point but then again being informed is an individual voter's responsibility even in the current format.


----------



## BobF (Aug 8, 2015)

Lots of inputs so far.    For me some were very good and some not so good.   Some were actually not so good at all.

Right now we have no majority party in the US and it has slowly been getting worse and worse for the parties we have been talking about.   We have roughly about 30% for Democrats and a bit less for the Republicans and the larger group then is the non declared voters.   There have been years when there were different parties also running candidates.   Use the link to see just how small the party shares have fallen.   On July 8th, both were under 30% with Republicans at 23% and Democrats at 28%.   These numbers do change but that is today's count.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

We don't need parties to make our Constitutional structured elections work.   The parties are only good for specific groups thinking and when the thinking of the people change the parties can disappear or change their ways.

Use these charts to see how things do change over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses


----------



## tnthomas (Aug 8, 2015)

We have a bunch of political parties to choose a *third* party from:



> America First Party
> 
> America's Party
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 9, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> We have a bunch of political parties to choose a *third* party from:
> 
> 
> 
> Source



The myth of the "two party system" becomes a reality too many won't give up. Three branches of government I get. But where is it said "two party system"


----------



## Ameriscot (Aug 9, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I vote as a senior for my best interest, thus I am a Democrat.



A very different system in the UK, but if I were to vote for the party that benefits my husband and I the most we'd have to vote Tory.  And that's about as likely as me voting Republican! (never!) We vote for those who are likely to, among other things, help those who need help the most.


----------



## BobF (Aug 9, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> A very different system in the UK, but if I were to vote for the party that benefits my husband and I the most we'd have to vote Tory.  And that's about as likely as me voting Republican! (never!) We vote for those who are likely to, among other things, help those who need help the most.



In the US we don't need 'party' in order to vote.   That is an added on bit of nonsense to make our government more controllable than just depending on the people to vote for their choice of all running for office.


----------



## Josiah (Aug 9, 2015)

The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 9, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.



Nader was an ass...


----------



## Ameriscot (Aug 9, 2015)

BobF said:


> In the US we don't need 'party' in order to vote.   That is an added on bit of nonsense to make our government more controllable than just depending on the people to vote for their choice of all running for office.



Why do you go on and on about not needing parties.  Of course you need parties.  I have never and will never vote for a republican because of their core views.


----------



## WhatInThe (Aug 9, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The two party system is not a myth. Whenever there's a third party candidate who garners more than 1% of the popular vote he/she ends up spoiling one of the major party candidates in a closely contested swing states. I will never forgive Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's win over GWB. That's what 3rd parties do in our political system. If you want to create a 3rd party, I suggest you name it the UCP, the Unintended Consequences Party because that's what it will be.



 The perception that elections are an either or choice is the myth not that it can shift votes. I understand thinking like a party strategist that those third parties ruined a lot of predictions and plans. I'm more worried about why voters go to a third party and less about the party or candidate themselves. Yes traditional but not legally required voting patterns and analysis have shown would 'could have' happened IF a third , fourth or fifth party wasn't there. 

There was a lot of crap in the 2000 election and to be quite frank neither candidate overwhelmed me. But rather than contemplate what if Nader didn't run I'd more worried why Gore struggled to get half the votes, there was no mandate other than a winning number in the popular vote. Same for 92/ Perot although my question was why couldn't Perot win. A sitting president couldn't get re-elected? Where were the mandates.


----------

