A viable third party

I was listening to O'Reilly one evening, and he said something that I found very interesting. He said that we cound confect a third party which could compete with the big two for a measly $5B (yup, that's "billion").

I would take that amount of money to get candidates on the ballot all over the country for federal / state and local races.

All it would take to get out of this political wasteland is $5B smackers.

Didn't work for Perot...

Gruder said:

Didn't work for Perot...

Click to expand...

Perot is exactly the reason it's now more difficult to make a 3rd party viable.

Gruder said:

Didn't work for Perot...

Click to expand...

and it helped Clinton

I think that there needs to be more parties than less. I am more of a Libertarian but I vote for Republicans because I know that the Libertarian Candidates have no chance of winning in the Seattle area.

I, for one, would love to see more parties started and involved in American politics. The two party system somehow manages to be both divisive and boring all at the same time. It's time for new ideas and fresh political blood.

I myself am a fan of The Constitution Party, since I do see myself as a Constructionist politically.

a multiparty system is good becuase it forces to a search for concenseus for projects, and control over party dominance,

but it also leaves goverments at the mercy of small pressure groups, if isreal had a 2 party system, the middle east peace process would have been done by now, one way or another, but the need to be subjected to small groups and parties to get something done can pose some problems,

Will this perhaps be the "wild party" of which Alice Cooper spoke?

MCsommerreid said:

Will this perhaps be the "wild party" of which Alice Cooper spoke?

Click to expand...

Somewhat related, I would have loved to see what would have seen the platform Frank Zappa would have taken if his political aspirations were not overshadowed by cancer.

Say what you want about his music but the man was no slouch.

So 20-somthing years ago while sitting in my Political Science class in college (I majored in something entirely different), the Professor threw out the Andy Rooneyesque...have you every wondered why...their aren't more political parties?
Of course I said yes, I think we should have fewer. She thought I was advocating something of a dictatorship but I was saying there should be no political parties.
Her contention was if a third party candidate has a good idea, one or the other parties pick it up and run with it, thus negating the third party.
On a side note, for years I said the abortion issue would be the undoing of the Republican Party. Funny that I haven't heard any thing about this election.
As I've said before, the older I get, the more I like the Libertarians.
And note well...while throughout history there may have been only two major parties, it hasn't always been the Democrats vs the Republicans (or the Bloods and Crips as Kinky Friedman called them).

if i may jump in here, (please excuse me, being from canada) we have a 3 party system up here. what happens more often than not is the third party splits off the vote, and with the resulting minority government, requiring cooperation from the other 2 parties not in power, nothing gets done.

kwk285 said:

I think that there needs to be more parties than less. I am more of a Libertarian but I vote for Republicans because I know that the Libertarian Candidates have no chance of winning in the Seattle area.

Click to expand...

I feel the same but insert Texas for Seattle. And I don't want to take the chance of a clown who promises everything to everybody who's biggest qualification is 182 days on the job as a Senator becoming the most powerful man in show biz, I mean the most powerful man in the World.

More often than not, I also have two opposing views when it comes to politics. Bellow, 3 min. of discussion.

Isaias[sub]1[/sub]: I agree. But IMO 3 parties are plenty enough. 2 opposing views and a mediating one.

Isaias[sub]2[/sub]:

Isaias[sub]1[/sub]: what?

Isaias[sub]2[/sub]: Bless your heart... you really think that would make a difference.

Isaias[sub]1[/sub]: So maybe Brewster is right? I refuse to believe that. There has to be some organic way to organize democracy...

Isaias[sub]2[/sub]: DEMOCRACY!!!

Isaias[sub]1[/sub]: OK. If we do not live in a democracy, there has to be a way to organize a State of Rights.

Isaias[sub]2[/sub]: True. We are organized (most of the times in a selfish manner) by our interests. And the big majority just pretends to be interested in politics. But here's the secret... they do not give a @@@@.

I vote to take the Jeffersonian Party political veiws and then mix them with todays times and then come up with a good name for it. Maybe we could take back our country

Aevum said:

a multiparty system is good becuase it forces to a search for concenseus for projects, and control over party dominance,

but it also leaves goverments at the mercy of small pressure groups, if isreal had a 2 party system, the middle east peace process would have been done by now, one way or another, but the need to be subjected to small groups and parties to get something done can pose some problems,

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Muslims would have finished what the Nazi's started. Fortunately our friends in Israel have the political will to survive, regardless of what the world community thinks of them.

Brewster said:

if i may jump in here, (please excuse me, being from canada) we have a 3 party system up here. what happens more often than not is the third party splits off the vote, and with the resulting minority government, requiring cooperation from the other 2 parties not in power, nothing gets done.

Click to expand...

When the wrong people are in power, stalemate isn't such a bad thing.

Jimbo said:

So 20-somthing years ago while sitting in my Political Science class in college (I majored in something entirely different), the Professor threw out the Andy Rooneyesque...have you every wondered why...their aren't more political parties?
Of course I said yes, I think we should have fewer. She thought I was advocating something of a dictatorship but I was saying there should be no political parties.
Her contention was if a third party candidate has a good idea, one or the other parties pick it up and run with it, thus negating the third party.
On a side note, for years I said the abortion issue would be the undoing of the Republican Party. Funny that I haven't heard any thing about this election.
As I've said before, the older I get, the more I like the Libertarians.
And note well...while throughout history there may have been only two major parties, it hasn't always been the Democrats vs the Republicans (or the Bloods and Crips as Kinky Friedman called them).

Click to expand...

It's always been the Democrats against someone.

Democrats vs. Federalists
Democrats vs. Democrats
Democrats vs. Whigs
Democrats vs. Republicans

barberofdeville said:

I vote to take the Jeffersonian Party political veiws and then mix them with todays times and then come up with a good name for it. Maybe we could take back our country

Click to expand...

+ A bunch.

Our founding fathers were a very wise bunch. It's true they had their flaws like everyone else, and were subject to the popular beliefs of their day. Having said that, they set up a system that if followed correctly would be self correcting, and regulating. This of course requires intelligent patriotic people paying attention and being involved. I have eyed the corruption in my own home town's local government and have given serious thought to running for office. I may still do so at some point. I encourage others to look into it.

As for a viable third party, I welcome it. If Bill Gates croaks tomorrow, and by some mistake I end up inheriting 5 billion, I think I know where to spend it. (ok, I would have to keep a million or so...)

While we are on the topic, wouldn't it be fun to suddenly become a multi billionaire? I would just love to write a few billion dollar checks to trusts that benefit my favorite charities and political groups. It would create quite a ruckus but it sure would be fun.

barberofdeville said:

I vote to take the Jeffersonian Party political veiws and then mix them with todays times and then come up with a good name for it. Maybe we could take back our country

Click to expand...

We already have that, it's The Constitutionalists Party, it's rather small, but they back everything Jefferson believed.

Then again, it would be rather easy if our present political representation ever took the time to read the document.