Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

It's not the absence of a third party, it's the fact that the system prevents third parties from rising. Just look at Europe if you want to see a couple of alternatives.

But is it a problem that third parties can't arise if their absence is no sin? I can't see it.

I've been thinking more about this whole three-party thing, and honestly I don't see that three parties is inherently better in any way. America went through its best and worst times with two serious parties (except the civil war, they had more parties; Great time for america too), and I don't see how jamming some other one would fix anything; that is to say, I doubt some magical surge in the Constitution or Green parties, or some great split in the Democratic or Republican parties, would somehow fix America, the political system, the world, and/or anything. Convince me Bay12.

Because they wouldn't be establishment Democrat or Republican.  People want an alternative to the two major parties, because they're fed up with the horrible things that both Democrats and Republicans mutually support (surveillance/police state/environmental destruction/class warfare).  The vast majority of people that I ever talk to about politics only vote for the major parties because each side gets the other so emotional and fear-stricken over social issues. 

Edit:
Ok, there's also a major divide over pure capitalism vs public safety net, but even when conservative/liberal may agree with their respective party's economic stances in principle, in my experience it's still widely acknowledged that we're being sold out by both sides regardless of the principles they preach.

Not arguing about whether those things are true or not. My question is this: would any alternative not support these things? My understanding is that the system itself is broken; any party that wants to gain legitimacy would need to compromise any positions that were irreconcilable with the current position. Thus, either you fix the system (and thus remove eliminate your opposition to the main parties to begin with), or you don't (and now you have three parties you can't/won't support).

In any case, I don't see any movement that couldn't arise in one of the parties but could arise in a legitimate third party.

[SalmonGod]

As an anarchist, I mostly can't disagree with you.  I believe these problems are embedded in the founding principles of the establishment of wealth, government, and hierarchy, and no change in leadership will fix that.  Things will get better or worse in cycles, but an altogether different kind of society is needed to do away with them entirely.

On the other hand, I would first question the nature of the legitimacy you bring up. 
If the public only grants legitimacy to the status quo because of a bunch of mind games that divide the populace and keep them convinced that they must not throw away their vote by choosing between the lesser of two evils, then that's not a very substantial legitimacy. 
But I suppose you could instead be referring to the legitimacy granted by lobbying and campaign funding...

Further, change in leadership is significant in bringing about the kind of positive change that is possible within the existing framework.  Especially given that it's the people we vote in that manipulate the laws which make the system what it is, at least on the surface.

That kind of change isn't going to happen by continually voting in people from the same two organizations, which are both proven to be heavily manipulated by the same wealthy interests that are invested in the status quo.

[Lord Shonus]

It's not the absence of a third party, it's the fact that the system prevents third parties from rising. Just look at Europe if you want to see a couple of alternatives.

But is it a problem that third parties can't arise if their absence is no sin? I can't see it.

I've been thinking more about this whole three-party thing, and honestly I don't see that three parties is inherently better in any way. America went through its best and worst times with two serious parties (except the civil war, they had more parties; Great time for america too), and I don't see how jamming some other one would fix anything; that is to say, I doubt some magical surge in the Constitution or Green parties, or some great split in the Democratic or Republican parties, would somehow fix America, the political system, the world, and/or anything. Convince me Bay12.

Because they wouldn't be establishment Democrat or Republican.  People want an alternative to the two major parties, because they're fed up with the horrible things that both Democrats and Republicans mutually support (surveillance/police state/environmental destruction/class warfare).  The vast majority of people that I ever talk to about politics only vote for the major parties because each side gets the other so emotional and fear-stricken over social issues. 

Edit:
Ok, there's also a major divide over pure capitalism vs public safety net, but even when conservative/liberal may agree with their respective party's economic stances in principle, in my experience it's still widely acknowledged that we're being sold out by both sides regardless of the principles they preach.

Not arguing about whether those things are true or not. My question is this: would any alternative not support these things? My understanding is that the system itself is broken; any party that wants to gain legitimacy would need to compromise any positions that were irreconcilable with the current position. Thus, either you fix the system (and thus remove eliminate your opposition to the main parties to begin with), or you don't (and now you have three parties you can't/won't support).

In any case, I don't see any movement that couldn't arise in one of the parties but could arise in a legitimate third party.

The big thing that a viable third party would do is bring less polarity to politics. As it is, most informed voting decisions are made on the basis of a few single issues, and voters have to swallow the rest of the platform of the party that agrees with their stance on that view, and much of the platforms is based on being directly opposite the other party, forcing people not only to swallow a lot they don't support, but actively endorse it. For example, someone who is pro-gun, pro-gay, and pro-working class doesn't have a candidate that supports all three issues, and is likely to have to support a candidate that opposes at least one. So, he has to evaluate which issues are more likely to be a serious issue in the next two, four, or six years (depending on position), knowing that unexpected circumstances may bring a different issue to the forefront and putting him in the position of having voted for someone he now opposes vehemently.

A viable third party would do a lot to reduce that problem, because not only would there be a third platform in the mix (meaning that you have more options on what stances the candidates are going to take on the issues), but the existing parties would no longer have the incentive to set their platforms up as "the opposite of the other guy" to attract single-issue voters, providing a net benefit even if it is a bad party in general

[Reelya]

With only two parties you either get a government blank check (if they control both houses) or complete gridlock (if opposite parties control each house). With a third party, you have independent voices in government who aren't beholden to the major party interests. If that third party has the deciding vote in either house, then politicians from both major parties end up trying to modify their proposals to appeal to the middle guy, and thus you wind up getting actual compromise solutions instead of tactical gridlock.

[palsch]

So after the 2012 elections there were some editorials talking about Obama going shopping for an international legacy in either Israel (getting the peace process moving again) or Cuba. Then Israel exploded again.

So now this is happening.

A pretty damned big deal.

[misko27]

If I recall correctly, the third party candidate Gary Johnson running in 2012 actually sued the corporation running the debates for creating arbitrary rules to force-out third-parties in the debates. Not sure what became of it, but it is a good example of how they actively force out third parties in the political race for President, at least.

But again, I don't really want a third party for third party's sake. I mean, I doubt Gary Johnson, from what I know of him, would have dramatically improved matters if he had been allowed to go and debate. I think back to the NY Governor's race in 2010: We had a whole lotta third parties; remember the "Rent is too damn high" guy? It was a hilarious side-show to the democrat winning: everyone else was ridiculous.

With only two parties you either get a government blank check (if they control both houses) or complete gridlock (if opposite parties control each house). With a third party, you have independent voices in government who aren't beholden to the major party interests. If that third party has the deciding vote in either house, then politicians from both major parties end up trying to modify their proposals to appeal to the middle guy, and thus you wind up getting actual compromise solutions instead of tactical gridlock.

Well first, the only way to gain a blank check (as the currently republican congress is very, very aware) is to control Congress and the Presidency. Now, secondly you describe a "independent voices in government who aren't beholden to the major party interests". But we are talking about a major third party right? If yes, then by definition it is susceptible to the same influences the others are. You may disagree, but I ask you: what would this third party entail? No party exists in a vacuum after all; Left-wing, Right-wing, Center? There are problems no matter what you do. Any right-wing or left-wing party would permanently cede the Presidency to the left or right wing, respectively, and could also lead to awkward fighting over the shared base (as there is with the Tea Party v. Establishment, and they are still the same party!), which could just worsen gridlock. As for the center? I struggle to conceive of a viable centrist party: all third parties I've seen distinguish themselves by their opposition to the current order (otherwise why would they vote for them?), and moderates and realists just, don't do that. Realists and moderate politicians tend to be establishmentarians, as the sheer weight of inertia supports the current system, and only something radical could overturn it; the center is, by definition, not radical.

The big thing that a viable third party would do is bring less polarity to politics. As it is, most informed voting decisions are made on the basis of a few single issues, and voters have to swallow the rest of the platform of the party that agrees with their stance on that view, and much of the platforms is based on being directly opposite the other party, forcing people not only to swallow a lot they don't support, but actively endorse it. For example, someone who is pro-gun, pro-gay, and pro-working class doesn't have a candidate that supports all three issues, and is likely to have to support a candidate that opposes at least one. So, he has to evaluate which issues are more likely to be a serious issue in the next two, four, or six years (depending on position), knowing that unexpected circumstances may bring a different issue to the forefront and putting him in the position of having voted for someone he now opposes vehemently.

A viable third party would do a lot to reduce that problem, because not only would there be a third platform in the mix (meaning that you have more options on what stances the candidates are going to take on the issues), but the existing parties would no longer have the incentive to set their platforms up as "the opposite of the other guy" to attract single-issue voters, providing a net benefit even if it is a bad party in general

Now this point is well taken, and I will keep it in mind. However, I still have some concern over what any consistent third party that would also fit this role would actually look like. It's easy to discuss the hypothetical as if we were creating a new nation with an undeveloped political spectrum, but we are discussing an existing one. If the two parties are considered to be more-or-less opposite on each issue (with a few exceptions), how would a third party also support an issue in such a way as to be considered as legitimate as whichever main party already supports it?

So after the 2012 elections there were some editorials talking about Obama going shopping for an international legacy in either Israel (getting the peace process moving again) or Cuba. Then Israel exploded again.

So now this is happening.

A pretty damned big deal.

Also people this is a big fucking deal. Don't respond to me, respond to this! The BBC article is deceptively calm. I don't ordinarily consider this a good thing, but this is a good time for big headlines. Let me rephrase: US moves to normalize relations with Cuba.

[Baffler]

US moves to normalize relations with Cuba.

That's fantastic, though I'd point out that what the White House is actually saying is far more vague than that article.

[lemon10]

Third Party stuff.

First past the post voting trends towards two parties, and as long as we keep it there won't be any 3rd parties of note in the US.
And since the founders put FPTP voting in (and its the status quo, so everyone in power wants to keep it), I see about 0 chance of it ever changing barring some massive revolution or something similar.

[Descan]

Misko, you want a reason to ditch the parts of the system that make it a two party system? And, to be clear, that's what we're talking about. Even if you, somehow, could force a third party, it'll stabilize into a two party system within an election cycle or two. Asking for a third party in the current American election system is like asking for a glass of water without the glass. Sure, you might get a tube of water, for a split second. Then it'll collapse and there's a huge mess just everywhere.

But a reason for a 3+ party system is because it is absurd, laughable, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and downright dumb to think that all 300 million Americans voices, ideas, thoughts, desires, and wants are represented by Column A or Column B. Having many more parties who could be voted for (basically anyone who can scrounge up some threshold percentage of votes), and have a proportional say in the American government would make your representative democratic republic.. you know, actually be representative and democratic. Kind of a good thing, yes?

[misko27]

Mmm-hmm, let me describe my intentions more accurately: I want Bay12 to prove that moving to a three-party system (or whatever) is in America's interests. What that means is prove to me that it a) would work, b) would work in America, and c) would be worth the cost of implementing, whatever the definition for those things mean. Let me remember the definition of the liberal-conservative spectrum that is used most generally: That is, Radicals want to replace the system, Liberals wish to reform, Conservatives want to keep, Reactionaries wish to return to an older system. Under that definition, I am a liberal. I do not wish to throw out everything unless you can prove its really damn worth it.

Third Party stuff.

First past the post voting trends towards two parties, and as long as we keep it there won't be any 3rd parties of note in the US.
And since the founders put FPTP voting in (and its the status quo, so everyone in power wants to keep it), I see about 0 chance of it ever changing barring some massive revolution or something similar.

Your argument is well reasoned. In fact, it's so well-reasoned I will use it as evidence for my point: Changing the system is hard. Painful in every sense of the word. The reformers of a century ago managed to do some real good to the Constitution, but that was the result of years of pressure, and those reforms were still not as radical as what is being discussed. Costly is the word, and it seems wise that I make sure they be dramatically beneficial changes before supporting them. The Progressive reforms of more then a century ago were democratic (direct election of senators) but also very practical, in that they directly attacked problems. This is what I demand as proof: Function as well as form.

But a reason for a 3+ party system is because it is absurd, laughable, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and downright dumb to think that all 300 million Americans voices, ideas, thoughts, desires, and wants are represented by Column A or Column B. Having many more parties who could be voted for (basically anyone who can scrounge up some threshold percentage of votes), and have a proportional say in the American government would make your representative democratic republic.. you know, actually be representative and democratic. Kind of a good thing, yes?

I have philosophical objections to your arguments, but I will stand by my own metric and keep them to myself. My objection, then, is simple: prove this helps people. Prove that what seems to me as an unending wave of potential chaos and division not only could, but rather would, be a good and positive thing that would ease divisions instead of worsen them, and help solve crises rather then make them. If more democracy doesn't make things better, I don't really see why I would ever want it for my country. Besides, the idea "the more democracy the better" has certain implications: If you don't want to have to compromise your beliefs based on who is running in which column, it seems to me you want direct democracy.

[lemon10]

The cost of implementing them would be pretty tiny. It would require huge political capital, but a change from FPTP to another system that allows more parties would be very cheap in all respects but this, and to be honest wouldn't be all that difficult to implement otherwise.

Plus, changing from FPTP would also get rid of gerrymandering, which would also be very much in the interests of democracy. I can't really prove that democracy is in the best interests of America, but I do assume that you are already in favor it.

This video should adequately explain the problems with FPTP voting, and quite a bit more eloquently than I can with the time available to me tonight.

[misko27]

Ok, let me rephrase.

They say "If there is a will, there is a way". I've found a corollary to this: "It doesn't matter whether there is a way if there is no will". I find thinking "Oh we could do all these amazing things if we could just set aside politics" to be misguided, as it means you were interpreting the "way", that is, the means, as the hard part. There are benefits to this. The point is that change is necessarily hard and long. And, well, would it solve the issues we have today? I'd really like for someone to answer that. Gerrymandering is part of the issues, but there are other, dramatically easier proposed ways of fixing that. I just don't see a third party as a Panacea, and if its not, I don't see why people try, since it seems to necessarily require a disproportionate cost for less gain.

[SalmonGod]

They say "If there is a will, there is a way". I've found a corollary to this: "It doesn't matter whether there is a way if there is no will". I find thinking "Oh we could do all these amazing things if we could just set aside politics" to be misguided, as it means you were interpreting the "way", that is, the means, as the hard part.

"If we could set aside politics" meaning if only the establishment that wishes to preserve itself didn't have so many ways to protect itself against change, even if is overwhelmingly wished for.  By "no will", you mean among the people that change must be funneled through.

But we are talking about a major third party right? If yes, then by definition it is susceptible to the same influences the others are. You may disagree, but I ask you: what would this third party entail? No party exists in a vacuum after all; Left-wing, Right-wing, Center? There are problems no matter what you do. Any right-wing or left-wing party would permanently cede the Presidency to the left or right wing, respectively, and could also lead to awkward fighting over the shared base (as there is with the Tea Party v. Establishment, and they are still the same party!), which could just worsen gridlock.

The problem with your argument here is that the democratic party currently behaves moderately conservative on everything but social issues. 

You mention the Tea Party vs establishment thing, but the Tea Party (mostly) doesn't want establishment republicans to alter the views that they represent.  They want republicans to be double down and be completely uncompromising about what they represent.  In other words, the Tea Party crowd has people who represent their views, just not in the way that they want.  The in-fighting is (again, mostly) about style of representation, not substance.

But anyone who wants environmental protection, accountability and de-escalation for surveillance organizations and law enforcement, opposition to the military-industrial complex, and more than shallow lip service in opposition to America's class war and criminalization of the poor is shit out of luck.  The democrats... may make a small gesture on behalf of these interests once in a while, but for the most part do not represent them.  There is a vacuum here, and if a third party filling that vacuum turns into some kind of fight with the democrats over who gets to represent the left, I think that would be great.  It would likely bring some balance into politics.

A movement within the Democratic party to begin representing those interests seems about as likely as the rise of a third party.  It's not going to happen.  But that's not going to stop people from talking about it.

And you talk about the cost of radical change, but you have to weight that against the cost of maintaining what currently is.  Every shred of serious evidence seems to indicate that if radical change doesn't happen soon, the planet will be trashed to the point of being unable to support civilization as we know it.  And even if that's not the case, the quality of life in the U.S. continues to drop at a rapid pace for everyone but the rich, and that's not sustainable either.

[FearfulJesuit]

Just visited Conservapedia to see their take on the Cuba move and was reminded that the head of Conservapedia believes that Fidel Castro was replaced by a look-alike eight years ago. Never change, Conservapedia. Never change.

[Reelya]

Fidel Castro did not appear publicly with the Pope during his visit to Cuba in late March 2012, which is contrary to basic diplomacy.

Well that might be because he's retired as head of state. Does the Pope meet with every previous US President on each visit?

OMG Jimmy Carter has been replaced by a clone, otherwise he would have met the pope in public.